Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harvin

[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)

Typical article which looks well-sourced at first, but which is rather problematic. The sources seem to be added randomly to sentences, e.g. the line about "Henry Harvin became first Educational Technology Company that provided cources on Agile and Bitcoin" is sourced to two links which don't mention this fact at all. All the sources, and most of what I can find online, are of the "5 companies which offer the best courses on subject X" type with texts clearly supplied by the company (and probably paid for inclusion in the "article" as well), not sources about the company written from a neutral or journalistic perspective. These kind of articles really are a plague and we should probably put a lot of these sources simply on the blacklist, but until then deleting them one by one is the way to go. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's well-reasoned analysis. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 13 February 2022 (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.