Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Classes

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs) deleted the article with the rationale G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Alpha Classes

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

Unremarkable private teaching company fails to meet notability guidelines for companies (which it is) and schools/colleges (which it is not). Reads like an advert, which is unsurprising given the very clear conflict of interest that exists. The article was created by user Rajatkalia, the company was founded by Rajat Kalia. Biker Biker (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the article was previously speedy-deleted in March 2012 after being created by the same contributor. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant promotion for a non-descript small chain of for-profit cram schools. Massive COI and fails all inclusion criteria - no need to list them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/G11 There are more references on the net to my local bakery, and they don't even have their own webpage. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors that I respect have pointed out that this should have been speedy deleted. I admin to having a brain-fart this morning which is why I didn't tag it as speedy, something that I am normally quick to do in the right circumstances. Is there any reason this spam/puffery can't be speedy deleted given the clear consensus? --Biker Biker (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously indicated to the article creator on his Talk page (now blanked) and my own what is required in terms of reliable references to establish company notability. None have been forthcoming, nor can I locate any myself. AllyD (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are unreliable and from its website. As Kudpung pointed out, the creator has a COI and the article is very adverty and doesn't assert notability as to why this for-profit school is notable, and therefore, it fails WP: CORP since it lacks reliable, secondary sources. Electric Catfish 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, there's a small claim in there (about student lists being posted online) but unless external sources talk about that it's nowhere near enough. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author has blanked the page, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (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.