Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollegeNET

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 no consensus. Strong arguments on both sides, but consensus failed to materialize. Seeing that even some of the Delete !voters conceded that there are one or two sources offering WP:CORPDEPTH, this seems like an acceptable result. Please do not renominate for at least six months. Owen× ☎ 15:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

CollegeNET

CollegeNET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a failure of WP:NCORP. Existing sourcing is almost exclusively primary, a lot of which seems to have been written by someone with a COI, due to the trademark symbols all over the place. There doesn't seem to be much more out there. The only even half usable source in the article is the one from ZDNet, but that's pretty surface level and doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I found an Oregonian article about a lawsuit against the company (). I also found some coverage of an older antitrust lawsuit the company was involved in from The Chronicle of Higher Education () and Higher Ed Dive (). I suspect additional sources are out there; I'll try to do a bit more digging later. Zeibgeist (talk)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's heavily rewritten. I'm not sure if it's bad enough that WP:TNT is warranted, but what's here is likely near-useless given all the primary sources here. That said, Zeibgeist seems to be already at work getting the thing in a manner that's shipshape-- the trademark symbol sea is now gone. So, it seems to me that the "if heavily rewritten" is going to happen. Godspeed you magnificent gentleman. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Lunamann: How's it looking now? More cleanup work is needed, but I've reworked a good portion of the article with secondary sources. There's more secondary coverage out there, but I think I'll take a break for tonight. I'll try to come back to this tomorrow and tidy up some more. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
    Holy crap, I think this might be keepable now. You are a scholar and a gentleman, Zeibgeist, thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. This company has released some significant software over the course of its history and it's also received coverage for a number of lawsuits. I've reworked the article with secondary sources, and there's more coverage to be found on Newspapers.com and sources like The Chronicle of Higher Education. We easily have enough here to meet WP:NCORP. I'll try to expand some more in the coming days. Zeibgeist (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved significantly thanks to Zeibgeist. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Hey ScalarFactor, Zeibgeist, perhaps I'm missing something, which sources do you see that provide in-depth independent *content* about the company? HighKing++ 19:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    Hi, I considered the articles about the lawsuit(s) the company was involved in to be WP:SIGCOV. I also see quite a few articles about them in NewspaperArchive through WP:TWL, although I do not (currently) have full access to Newspapers.com myself to check for the articles Zeibgeist mentioned there. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    The company has received coverage in multiple Oregonian articles, including a company profile from 1996, an article about a 2004 lawsuit, and an article about a recent lawsuit against the company by its founder. The Chronicle of Higher Education has published multiple articles about a lawsuit between CollegeNET and Common Application. A book published by Taylor & Francis devotes multiple paragraphs to CollegeNET's development of the Social Mobility Index (no page num provided through Google Books, but I've supplied a representative quotation). A search on Google Books reveals many more matches discussing the company in the context of applying for financial aid and scholarships. Many of the sources are in snippet view, but it looks like several contain more than passing mentions. Overall, we definitely have enough here to meet NCORP. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    I also found an article from Inside Higher Ed that has multiple paragraphs about the Coalition for College dropping CollegeNET as its technology provider. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    Finally, I found an article from the Journal of Black Studies that references CollegeNET extensively when analyzing social mobility at historically black colleges and universities. Happy to email a PDF to anyone unable to access the article. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Gardner, Fran (October 8, 1996). "Making a good match: Universal Algorithms' CollegeNet is now the most visible service of the Portland scheduling firm". The Oregonian. p. B16 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ↑ Simpson, April (June 24, 2004). "CollegeNET sues rival over claims about service". The Oregonian. p. B1 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ↑ Rogoway, Mike (November 11, 2025). "Portland software entrepreneur sues for $350M, says private equity firm bought his company and then fired him". OregonLive. Retrieved January 7, 2026.
  4. ↑ Hoover, Eric (May 22, 2015). "2 Rivals in College-Application Industry Chart New Courses". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 7, 2026.
  5. ↑ Hoover, Eric (December 21, 2015). "Tech Company Rekindles Lawsuit Against Common Application". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 7, 2026.
  6. ↑ Hoover, Eric (June 3, 2018). "How Admissions Competition Brought New Rivalries, Strange Bedfellows, and 'An Us-Versus-Us Lawsuit'". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 2, 2026.
  7. ↑ Georgianna L. Martin; Sonja Ardoin, eds. (2021). Social Class Supports: Programs and Practices to Serve and Sustain Poor and Working-Class Students Through Higher Education. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-344699-6 – via Google Books. CollegeNET is a social mobility thought leader and developer of the Social Mobility Index (SMI). CollegeNET is a strong partner with the Center for Social Mobility, providing educational sessions at the annual symposium, as well as elevating the conversation beyond traditional rankings through their innovative SMI approach ... Annually, the CollegeNET SMI ranks nearly 1,400 four-year institutions on the degree to which they contribute to social mobility based on five variables: tuition, economic background, graduation rate, early career salary, and endowment.
  8. ↑ Jaschik, Scott (January 30, 2022). "Coalition Plans New Application". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 7, 2026.
  9. ↑ Precious M. Hardy; Elizabeth J. Kaganda; Mara S. Aruguete (July 2019). "Below the Surface: HBCU Performance, Social Mobility, and College Ranking". Journal of Black Studies. 50 (5): 468–483. JSTOR 26741654.
  • Delete This is a business therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply, specifically the requirement for in-depth "independent *content*" *about* the *company*. Mere "coverage" and mentions isn't the test, no matter the volume or the reputation of the publication or author - we look at the content to identify whether there exists in-depth independent content *about* the *company*. None of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria - either the content is insufficiently in-depth or has no independent content - that is, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The newspaper articles rely entirely on information provided by the company or their executives or spokespersons, there is no in-depth independent content about the company. The articles about the lawsuits contains a brief summary description. Like the previous editor, I can see snippets from the book "Social Class Supports" but from what I can see, there are only two sentences about the company which is insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. The information about the company losing its contract with The Coalition for College (a business partner and therefore "involved") provides almost no independent content or in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally, the Journal of Black Studies has nothing to say about the company at all, instead mentioning their product, the SMI. Notability is not inherited, the article is not about the index but the company and we need to see sourcing that meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing++ 15:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are several articles that establish notability as they are indepth including CNET, and ZFDNET.Darkm777 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    Both links point to the same article. The CNET article is about a partnership between the subject and IBM. This is routine coverage and does not count towards notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with HighKing's source assessment, having reviewed the sources independently. This subject does not meet WP: NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperAccelerated (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:47, 16 January 2026 (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.