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. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Study Sparkz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I came across this via a speedy deletion for A7, however the Washington Post article is just enough to where it would potentially pass the low bar of speedy criteria. In any case, a search showed that the WP article is pretty much the only coverage this company has received since its founding in 2007. (It also doesn't help that the article is borderline promotional.)

This could probably be speedied, but at least this way the AfD would prevent future recreation before the company gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link to the page in order to increase the known significance. I'd disagree that the article is promotional since the material on the page is fact.

Wiseowl1111 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wiseowl1111: You linked to a press release, which is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source, since those are written by the company or someone they paid to write the release. As far as the promotional tones go, the article is only borderline. However I also need to point out that something can be factual but still be promotional. In this case what makes it promotional is that you list out every single place that the service is offered and you also list every single topic that they offer tutoring in. When writing an article it's usually better to summarize a business's offerings and locations rather than list every single location and offering, as that makes it look like a directory or business listing - neither of which is what a Wikipedia article should be. However at the same time this wasn't so over the top that I'd delete on that basis alone and the main reason for deletion is notability. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the company? If you are someone who works for the company then you'll need to disclose this somewhere per WP:COI. I've left more information on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've still pursued A7 and G11 but at least we have abilities for G4 now if it's restarted, nothing at all convincing for solid independent notability regardless of an apparent Washington Post article. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:N. No extensive coverage. CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable business seeking free advertising. Quis separabit? 20:00, 3 June 2016 (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.