Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piirus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piirus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be advertising for a web site. It doesn't cite any reliable unaffiliated sources. Notability is not established. The citations are to the site itself and its affiliated promoters. The one cited source that might appear unaffiliated, something called Science Business, seems to be an affiliated promotional advertising service (see the site's "About us" information). The text in the article seems to be mostly copied from the website's promotional material (e.g., at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/ias/piirus.aspx) – see, especially, what it said before I started trying to remove some of the non-neutral and non-notable information from it. This, of course, suggests a potential copyright problem as well as a lack of neutrality. The article has mostly been edited only by anonymous IPs that seem to repeatedly try to give it a more promotional tone (and do not respond to comments on their Talk pages asking them whether they work for the company). The article has apparently been speedily deleted before, per remarks on the Talk page of the article's creator. The article's creator also seems to have a number of messages on their Talk page indicating a pattern of copyright issues, and the user does not appear to have ever responded to the comments on their Talk page. I may as well also mention that the article about this website's "sister site", jobs.ac.uk, appears to be similarly weak in evidence for notability and also self-sourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: indeed there hasn't been much coverage as of right now ([1], [2], [3]) so maybe move it to the draftspace until it has been covered by a few more sources. --Fixuture (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Warwick at best perhaps because this would actually be acceptable but perhaps still somewhat questionable, there are likely no serious needs for deletion. Notifying DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, but the connection with the university is too minor to move it there DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that I am also open to drafting. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.