Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahead Learning Systems

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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead Learning Systems[edit]

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

pure advertising , regardless of notability DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 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) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not notable based on reliable non-primary sources I could find with Google searching for "Ahead Learning Systems" and a couple variants. It was mentioned in passing in an article on college entrance exam review here, and in an article about the founder here, but most other mentions I could find with google are from the company itself, on their site, in apparent press releases, on job posting sites, etc. Non-internet sources cited in the current article are cited to support what sound like marketing-oriented sentences (e.g. getting your "dream job"), so it's possible they're reliable sources, but I don't have access to them. --Agyle (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. Non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 22:59, 6 January 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.