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 keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skillstrain[edit]

Skillstrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was speedy deleted as A7 - company with no indication of notability. DRV overturned, holding that the controversies section constituted a claim to notability. [1], the version that was chached by Google, looks to show notability better than the version that was stubbed and deleted. Concern is Notability as defined by WP:CORP. This nomination is neutral. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small point, A7 actually calls for a credable claim of importance not notibility. That is specifically stated to be a lower threashold than notibility so a rejection of A7 is not an endorsement of the notibility of the article or even evidence that the article passes notibility guidelines.--76.69.167.214 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Tesug has repeatedly removed entire sections of information from this article that are backed by valid sources such as the BBC. At the moment I am having to repeatedly undo Tesug's deletions of info every other day. If there are positive media reports relating to the company in questions then those should be added to the article rather than verisiable existing info being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invest-agator (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Invest-agator clearly has an agenda. Whilst old references are sometims of value, aged links to entries that no longer apply (the same could be said of various quality companies that have crossed paths with the BBC in the past) should be replaced to keep the article of practical value to readers needing up to date information. In terms of the issues raised there is a new link to a recently made video that clearly answers questions for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesug (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Still not stellar, but the citations found by Hamiltonstone suggest that they barely meet WP:N. The coverage is mostly about the event which is why I'm not enthusiastic about supporting the article but it does seem to merit inclusion. -- Atama頭 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skillstrain / Metropolitan International Schools Limited largely has media coverage for a single (but quite significant) event not mentioned in the article at all: a 2009 court case in which it unsuccessfully sought to sue Google because Google's search engine results included allegedly defamatory remarks about Skillstrain. Those remarks relate to the alleged scamming / conduct associated with some of the company's sales activities and operations.
  • The court case is sufficiently important that it rates mention on WP, however it is almost (see below) the only context in which Skillstrain appears to receive coverage in reliable sources. The company does appear to have an efficient publicity machine resulting in non-notable coverage of its own sponsored awards etc, but not coverage of the company per se.
  • The other reliable media coverage appears to be the two BBC reports that one editor persistently deletes from this article. Given that they represent the only substantive reliable coverage of the organisation, that deletion is inappropriate.
  • There appear to be two webpages that might be reliable sources, that may host a document involving some sort of complaint investigation re Skillstrain, but my browser is giving error messages when trying to visit them. Someone else might like to try:
If the article is kept, it should primarily cover the court case and the questions raised by the BBC investigation, and the coverage of the investigation should include a summary of the company's response. I am happy to assist in ensuring neutrality at the article, but not if everyone else here has a consensus to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have now updated the article to reflect the above sources, but still haven't been able to access the Advertising Standards Authority material, which is likely to be important.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (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.
More