Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Learning (Company)

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Learning (Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Creator of article (and only contributor) deleted PROD without improving article. So here we are. Original deletion rationale was and remains: "A few passing mentions, no in depth coverage as required. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted accordingly." ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Requires more refs. Germcrow (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company is notable in education sector but is not extensively covered by media.--PicasaPicaso (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you say it is notable? You contested the PROD but again/still have not given a reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Bri (talk), few of my known friends have studied through it. While it does not enough credibility online due to their willingness to grow through word of mouth, they are really popular in India and they has been changing lives. This is the reason why they have won awards and why their programmes are rank in top three position as given in the sources. I have been trying to contribute to Wikipedia in the best ways possible and I understand that Wikipedia needs enough sources to sustain a page, but considering the kind the of revolutionising programmes introduced by them, I suppose they deserve a page. I have tried to follow most of the rules of Wikipedia but your are the admin. I request you to please consider keeping it.PicasaPicaso (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are changing lives", "They deserve to have a page" and stuff like that sounds like WP:ATA#Arguments without arguments to me. But *shrug* I'm sure the closing admin will know what to do. BTW, I am not an admin and even if I were, would not be closing this. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. --MrClog (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - see very little evidence of notability. One of the sources is a company press release, another is just a passing mention in an article about IT training in general. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just another company wanting to get on to Wiki. No references about the company per-se. Jupitus Smart 16:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:PROMO, obviously. This is another company that wants to be on Wikipedia, but doesn't have the sources to actually be here. Tosi | he/him | ^t/_c 16:08, 1 May 2019 (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.