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. This close is without prejudice against the article being re-created at a later time, once notability can be established. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GraduRates[edit]

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

I looked for, but did not find, additional coverage about this company. The sources originally provided were:

Telegraph story with a passing mention
Guardian article with five paragraphs about the company
This is Money article with two sentences about the company along with a mention
Independent story with one sentence about the company and two sentences quoting its founder
Independent story which doesn't mention the company
CKGSB blog with a brief mention of the company

The Guardian article looks like in-depth, independent coverage. Is it enough? —rybec 05:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Whatever may have gone inot newspapers is probably recycling a press release. TOO SOON: having been launched a few months ago, I doubt that it has become notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Keep as stub. Meets requirements but requires more editing/info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.225.77 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indepth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and possibly userfy. This is a nice article and it has very good sources, from notable newspapers. However, the company is still new and there wouldn't be much to build on the article. The company seems to be serving a "gap" audience which is good and I wish them luck but it's a start up article. Absolutely no prejudice for a new article when the company is better known. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 30 October 2013 (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.