Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaDa (school)

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. Consensus here is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DaDa (school)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not seem to have the significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources expected of a WP:NCORP. Currnet coverage is funding (not significant), rehashed press releases (not independent), and/or not from an RS. Better sources were not located when doing a BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep waving away 16 sources including Forbes and others that discuss this fairly large business make one wonder if any business is entitled to a wikipedia page if they have not been part of some big controversy. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to explain my evaluation of any of the sources, which I did in summary form in the nomination. Forbes can be a good example of the kinds of problems with the sources and so I'll go in depth. It was written by a Forbes contributor which per current consensus is not a reliable source; I see no reason in Ms. Jones's biography to suggest she is an expert in this area which would lend some validity to her writing even if still presenting issues with editorial process making it fall short of RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better coverage is found. I agree with nom's assessments that the coverage provided is routine investment press mixed with republication of press releases. The Forbes source is possibly the worst of the bunch (other than the Crunchbase profile), as a Contributor post is not RS and its coverage isn't even in-depth to boot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources found. I removed two sources that were from Medium, and another that was a republished PRNewswire source. Sourcing is weak.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weak sourcing (Forbes article is by a "contributor", not staff) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, non RS sources /sites, promotional. Fails WP:NCORP even with the single ref. scope_creep (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (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.