Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheExamCollection

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheExamCollection

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

This article about a company has no references which refer to TheExamCollection. A Google search for TheExamCollection gives one company web page which is non-functional. I could find no references to TheExamCollection in reliable sources. The article seems to be an attempt to be promotional. SchreiberBike talk 06:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This adds nothing to Certification. Its sections on particular IT vendor certificates is close to WP:UNDUE. The title is unlikely as a search term, so no benefit would result from a redirect to Certification. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
change: Some change has been occurred, Now its totally relevant to the certifications and general information regarding Certification. There is no extrnal link for any brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.181.106 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's hard to even see what it's claiming to be, let alone what it's successfully demonstrating through independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is quite informative regarding different certifications without representing any company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadraza092 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incoherent spam (or, more likely, an attempt at SEO). The article's creator says "Article is quite informative regarding different certifications without representing any company", which is odd since the article is full of certain IT certs, and the article title is the same as a website which offers exactly the same certs. How could the article's creator not know that their article has the same title as a business which does exactly the same thing that they're writing about? bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Specific companies certifications has been removed , now there is any further reason for deletion this page.In future , When Ever this page will be edited, It must b general and for knowledge sharing purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadraza092 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, you can't vote twice to keep your article. bobrayner (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced/OR article of unclear notability, with unencyclopedic language and unclear scope.Dialectric (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like cruft - I don't see any encyclopedic value. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (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.