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. slakr^\ talk / 08:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchooLinks[edit]

Note to closing administrator: The following accounts commenting on this discussion are checkuser-confirmed socks and have been blocked: Fang.katie (talk · contribs), Menabrena (talk · contribs), Alwongs (talk · contribs), Lukeevanwilliams (talk · contribs). This may affect the outcome of the discussion. Risker (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable company/website lacking independent, non-trivial support. CSD removed by ANOM users. Fails WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 09:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. User: reddogsix seems to be the only user that constantly wants to delete this article with no basis. He mentioned SchooLinks is trivial, however, as pointed out there are hundreds of websites that have articles in Wikipedia and they are truly trivial, they are just another social network, such as Blauk which ranks on Alexa at 331 000. Blauk has an article, and many websites alike. It is unfortunate Reddogsix is being too strict on this meanwhile there are hundreds of actual non-trivial articles out there. We have to acknowledge that SchooLinks is very important to the international education industry. They cooperate together with thousands of schools in the nation and hundreds of agencies around the world. They are not charging anything and are revolutionizing the studying abroad process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwongs (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist.

One more thing, I have never said the website in question is trivia, I have always said the notability support for the article is trivial. If you are going to quote, please let's be accurate. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article.This article is useful for quick references about international education programs all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.133.142 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — 201.103.133.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - How does, "useful for quick references about international education programs all over the world" meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist.

Keep this article, the only user against this is "Reddogsix." Reddogsix is constantly requesting this page to be deleted without any rationale. I've seen that 3 different users have reverted the notice of this page to be deleted, yet he continues adding into the list. This page is clearly not promoting any services SchooLinks offers. In fact, SchooLinks is a web directory that is very useful for international students, at free of charge. And it's a very useful guide for a niche market: international education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.116.102 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — 128.189.116.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please indicate how the article meets the requirements in WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on how this article meets the requirement WP:42 : You can check multiple credible sources regarding SchoolLinks. You can check TechCrunch which is a news website focused on information technology companies,they have manually verified SchooLinks's info. Check this:http://www.crunchbase.com/company/schoolinks

In the above link you can check TechCrunch has added checkmarks to their data, which means they have verified them.

In addition, SchooLinks has been featured in a newspaper in the British Weekly, a newspaper. Please check: http://www.british-weekly.com/.

Also SchooLinks ranks in the top 200,000 most popular websites in the world, according to Alexa Ranking. Their website traffic is significantly high, and provide a lot of utility for international students wanting to study abroad. There are a lot of articles of websites that rank lower than SchooLinks such as:

1. ASmallWorld ranks 604, 704.

2. Audimated ranks 982, 710

3.Advogato ranks 281, 540

5. Blauk ranks 331 000

6. FledgeWing ranks 1,537,62

And the list continues....So it does not make sense to delete SchooLinks, especially since it's perhaps the most useful and one and more visited websited for international education, and it's free for everyone to use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.116.102 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately the article does not meet the criteria in WP:42. The support you provided is trivial in nature. Once more, Alexa rankings do not support notability - popularity is not part of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Users have provided lots of links from prestigious sources from IT news, such as:

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/schoolinks

http://www.techvibes.com/company-directory/schoolinks

http://www.learningplanetedu.com/

http://www.british-weekly.com/

In my opinion, this article should remain and should not be deleted. SchooLinks helps students find their ideal school abroad in a non-subjective way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeevanwilliams (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of this coverage is significant in nature. "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it." The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist nor is "SchooLinks helps students find their ideal school abroad in a non-subjective way" a valid criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any reliable, third-party coverage on this website. In response to the above comment, the fact that there are notable websites with lower alexa rankings does not make this website notable as well. --JamesMoose (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite JamesMoose and reddogsix to look into other Wikipedia pages of websites that have WAY LESS coverage than SchooLinks, such as Blauk and yet they have a Wikipedia page. Can you expand on this? Why you don't place a notice of deletion for that article there? I think this is getting personal and you are being too stubborn. The purpose of Wikipedia is to have things documented; and is our job, contributors, to keep out businesses promoting themselves, but SchooLinks is not even selling anything and they are changing the way students select schools in the U.S. SchooLinks is something I attest is revolutionary, if you take 5 mins to comprehend it you would understand. The fact that SchooLinks ranks top 30 K in the nation and top 196 K in the world means is notable. I am not sure how much you know about websites but you have to understand that Alexa ranking is a factor. Even if Wikipedia states otherwise,Alexa Ranking is a factor by de facto. Take a look at websites that rank on top Alexa, they all have articles. You cannot find the correlation? You mention popularity does not matter? Then it begs the question why there are articles such as Charlie Bit My Finger..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwongs (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of this coverage is significant in nature. "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it." The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check out this link http://www.learningplanetedu.com/inicio/schoolinks-com-ayuda-a-estudiantes-encontrar-su-escuela-ideal/. It is a review of schoolinks.com in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menabrena (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 February 2014 (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.