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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth Education[edit]

Blyth Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No references to demonstrate notability and written like an advertisement Vrenator ^talk 09:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I didn't find the depth of coverage necessary to pass WP:CORP when doing the usual searches, but I see this company has been around since 1977, so there could well be sources that are not available online. I am erring on the side of deletion at the moment, but I could be persuaded if new sources come to light. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced spam, with no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertising. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (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.