Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Study Community

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 no notability, promotional. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Study Community

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

Promotional article, Author removed PROD. No indication of notability, linked articles by HuffPost and kidshealth do not seem to mention company. Laber□^T 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, with little to no coverage outside its own website. Also very promotional as noted. crh23 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly promotional article with zero coverage in sources. GAB^Hello! 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising or promotion. When people tag this type of article for speedy rather than PROD (which the advertiser is entitled to remove without giving a reason), I delete them per G11. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. This is nothing more than a puff/advertising piece for a NN company. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generic tutoring company, no coverage in reliable sources, the user who created the article looks to have a COI. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The author appears to be a single-purpose account. I believe RickinBaltimore hit the nail on the head. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as noticeably newly founded with unlikely chances with enough for an acceptable article and the current article certainly suggests this. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 10 April 2016 (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.