Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straighterline

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

=[[Straighterline]]=

:{{la|Straighterline}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straighterline}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Straighterline}})

Not notable, no assertion of notablity. No verifiable sources of notability. Appears to be a commercial plug from a single topic editor. Fails WP:SPIP  Velella  Velella Talk   09:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a company that has just started and has really become popular within the news. I am not sure why this is up for deletion and should not be. Please do not delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle andrew (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom and WP:SPIP. The article fails at WP:FAILN and should probably really have been up for CSD at A7, G11, or even both, and appears to have slipped through the net. This is also very possibly a WP:SPA (single use account) for the purpose of advertising the subject's product or service. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIR). The company on the author's own description, is a start-up and is therefore too new to have accumulated an notability per It's parent organisation will also shortly be up for deletion review. Referenced sources do not make notability, they confirm it , if it is already there. - being 'popular' dos not make the new kid on the block an encyclopedia candidate. Just having McGrawHIll as a customer does not make it notable. AFAIK, the subject does not have a direct government accreditation, even if it is 'partnered' with some universities. Also the article contravenes policy by listing the courses it provides. The world of distance and onine courses is a very vague area.--Kudpung (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is possibly not a SPA, editor has worked on a variety of other articles; although in similar subject matter.--Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my comments above before re-listing - no reason to change my views has emerged.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an business offering college courses online. No showing of technical, historical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 24 September 2010 (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.