Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schoolit

: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 Userfy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

=[[Schoolit]]=

:{{la|Schoolit}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schoolit Stats])

:({{Find sources|Schoolit}})

non notable and promotional. AfC submission that should not have been accepted. References are either not independent or insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There is only one reference provided that is even possibly reliable; I found none of any substance in my own brief search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I was rather confused some months ago when avs accepted this submission. mabdul 11:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Userfy: this submission covers a year-old online charity that managed to receive notice in local newspaper and on some obscure TV channel (or whatever EbruNews is). Though Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about one's noble cause, I would give this article benefit of doubt and allow its author to improve and re-submit it for WP:AFC review once/if ready. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Userfy for future development - article has merit and may be GNG notable in a year or so. Does need more independent reliable sources indicating its impact on the (virtual and real) community. I'm against deletion, because it reasonably may become GNG notable. --Lexein (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Userfy article should be improved, not deleted. Limemine (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete. The subject may be notable, but the Article reads like an infomercial. If indeed the subject is notable, it would be just as easy to write a new Article from the very start, rather than try to improve this commercial. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I would note, that I don't see unambiguously inappropriate tone. In fact, I don't see any need in rewriting the article once the reliable sources are there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's easy to see any article written about a business or non-profit as promotional. It's a challenge to find independent RS which do research, rather than merely parrot PR. Some government studies, public interest groups, consumer advocacy groups, can help. See also WP:List of free online resources and WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange --Lexein (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

: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.