Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplilearn

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.  Sandstein  17:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplilearn (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)

PR-like and unconvincing article since all of the listed sources are either somehow: PR or PR-speak, news about funding and partnerships, interviews and other trivial coverage; my own searches are noticeably, not only taking me into last year nearly instantly, but none of what's listed is actually convincing since it's either or trivial. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See the Advanced search options at right for more options. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Both Krishna Kumar and Simplified Solutions are covered at bloomberg.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer -Examining these sources above are finding quite a few noticeable articles that are simply the company talking about itself and thus is sourced by the company itself (note the articles contain information about seeking and obtaining funding and investors, somrthing only future clients and investors care about) that's not substantial coverage; what makes ot worse is that is also focuses with PR, something that a company certainly would mention about itself. One of the links (Tech in Asia) is even a specific interview with the CEO talking about the details of his own company. Although this has been relisted twice, this honestly needs a third relist because these Keep votes cannot be given weight given my analysis and the fact they are also simply thinly backing their claims with unconvincing PR-laced sources (sourced they have apparently not considered to actually in fact be PR since it contains exactly that) , thus that's not a convincing. Even though some of these are from known news sources, the information, as noted with my analysis earlier in this comment, cannot be based as a significant source alone if actually simply PR for and by the company itself. Essentially, there's only one source even close to being acceptable, and that's one, the one and only review; which is essentially still not enough, especially if surrounded by an ocean of PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per available sources. Most of the coverage offered at this AfD is trivial or PR-like, such as this passage:

• "Simplilearn wants to help employees keep up with the fast-moving, competitive professional world. The online training and certification provider released a mobile application today and announced a partnership with Udemy.

"Simplilearn claims to be the world’s largest certification training provider for working professionals. It offers a mix of classroom and online courses that help people get accreditations and approvals for skill sets they need for their career." Etc.

The most neutral source is PC Magazine, but that's not sufficient to meet SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. Content is the article is strictly advertorial, such as:

• "Simplilearn has trained over 400,000+ professionals across 150+ countries.[2] (cited to the company's website itself)

Rather than waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article, I suggest deleting per WP:PROMO and not meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep...absolutely I am surprised that this Afd exists till now. The company has an absolutely unbelievable number of reliable sources discussing the company in-depth. I am sure, as NorthAmerica mentions, that any issues with respect to the tone of content within the article can be addressed by copy-editing. Deleting a badly written article is not acceptable when the subject is covered with so much depth in unquestionable RS. For example, "Simplilearn: How a blog turned into a professional training startup" in Firstpost, "Education start-up Simplilearn plans to expand tie-ups with Indian corporations" in The Hindu, "What-next-for-education-startup-Simplilearn" in Live Mint, "Simplilearn recognized as the 'Best Educational Website' by IAMAI" in The Hindu Business Line, "Simplilearn targets enterprises, aims for $50 million revenues" in The Deccan Herald, "With outcome based skilling programmes, Simplilearn redefines training for Indian IT Industry" in The Economic Times, "Startup central: Simplilearn; the career app" in the Television channel ET Now, confirming Simplilearn being India's largest online skilling firm, "Lessons in entrepreneurship: The success of Simplilearn" in The Business Standard, "Simplilearn LMS" in The PC Mag, "Simplilearn to launch Online Classroom Flexi-Pass" in The Economic Times again. Each coverage is very in-depth and has no "PR" written about it. Clear keep. Lourdes 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the new sources above are PR or PR like, for example:

• Interview with the founder: “We offer courses under 10 different categories and top categories are digital marketing, big data, data science, mobile app development, IT security and project management, and the course fee in India is between Rs 5,000 and Rs 30,000, and in US between $250 and $1000,” said the startup CEO, adding instead of relying on their employers, tech professionals should come forward to learn such professional certification courses to enhance in their career.
• Straight up press release: "Simplilearn recognized as the 'Best Educational Website' by IAMAI" (Url contains "Business wire")
• Interview with the founder: "Startup central: Simplilearn; the career app"
• Etc.

This confirms that the company exists, but it's insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS nor WP:WEBHOST for hosting company materials. All of this -- corporate plans, interviews with the CEO, awards -- can be found on the corporate web site and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you about the Business Wire article. But what about articles like "Simplilearn: How a blog turned into a professional training startup" in Firstpost, "What-next-for-education-startup-Simplilearn" in Live Mint, "With outcome based skilling programmes, Simplilearn redefines training for Indian IT Industry" in The Economic Times, "Simplilearn taps the urge to learn and rise" in The Business Standard. On what grounds are you saying that these articles are PR or do not qualify on WP:CORPDEPTH. Please do point out the exact statements within these articles in RS that you feel don't qualify on the said guideline. They are all absolutely in-depth and allow the corporation to easily quality on Corp notability. I'll await your response eagerly. Thanks. Lourdes 06:46, 1 September 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.