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 merge to Essay mill. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay Writers[edit]

Essay Writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable company/website with a single verifiable reference source without any explicit claim to notability. Neither the company's history, nor specific coordinates, nor volumes of operation, nor anything is known — I urge everyone to peruse WP:COMPANY. Lucinor (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from article creator: even the briefest effort to look at my edit history would dispel the notion that this article is either self-promotion or slander; I suggest you revise your nomination per WP:AGF. The discussion regarding deletion can proceed on its own terms, without reference to personal attacks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on that, I rephrased the nomination. Sorry about the hasty accusation. -Lucinor (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Chronicle of Higher Education link is a legitimate article that discusses this company in detail, which seems to be significant (if not very admirable) in its field. I do wish I could find an additional source, though, because I'd really like to keep this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it really hard to believe a significant company in this field would have no other reputable references. A quick Google search shows that it originates quite an amount of controversy, but I don't see anything notability-inducing as per WP:COMPANY. Moreover, I would even go as to call it obscure — as some of you know, I worked for a company in this field (whose AfD was also started by me), and haven't even heard of Essay Writers. -Lucinor (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is more spam than an article. i just had them spam some facebook groups, so i suspect they have a new media campaign. that said, i do not think that one chronicle article constitutes notability... if it does... where's my article... heh. --Buridan (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally relevant comment. Wow! You've been the subject of a Chronicle article? You don't happen to be a single lesbian living in the midwestern US, do you? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Chronicle is the major standard RS on higher education. A feature article there is notability in the subject. As there is no better source for topics of this nature , it's sufficient. DGG (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No single source, however reputable should ever be used to validate notability of any entity. Master Psychologist (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Cut most of this article out and merge it into Essay mill as an example company. -Moritheil (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Essay mill - not yet sufficient coverage from reliable sources to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2009 (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.