Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Campus Special

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. There were not multiple independent sources that give significant coverage of this subject. The references only confirmed the existence of the company, were internship postings, or were simply passing mentions in the context of another subject.Sanchom (talk · contribs)

The Campus Special[edit]

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - there is no assertion of notabilty. In fact, there's nothing but an infobox and an underconstruction tag that's been there for a few days with no actual construction taking place. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article now has actual content, but there are no reliable sources to establish notabilty. The references provided are not indpendent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I will try to add more sources such as news sites that mention the company and career centers that work with the company. How many sources do i need to site until people will think this is a real company? Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - The question is not whether the company is real, but rather whether it is notable. We have fairly strong rules about notable companies, and how to document them; and I'm not sure whether this one qualifies. Your sources are rather weak, and marketing-related (which weakens their reliability, for reasons that I'm sure you understand as a marketing student). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any actions that i may have taken that aren't in accordance with the wikipedia rules. I am starting this page for a school project. Please let me know what i need to edit in order to comply with the rules. Msu123 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could you explain what school project this wiki article is for, and disclose any connection you might have with the subject of the article? -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - This is an extra credit assignment for my marketing class. Just about every student at our school and these other universities know these coupon books around campus and they didn’t have an entry on this site so I picked them. Besides being a student that has seen the book I don’t have any other connections with them. Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Circulation seems notable enough. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are coupon books given away for free, and not a circulation magazine so I'm not sure if you could call it circulation. In any case, there's no sources for the number. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't post the number of books they print. Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We (at least I am) are referring to the statement in the article They are based out of Atlanta and Chicago and print 2.5 million coupon books annually for 70 public & private universities. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ok thanks, I thought you were refering to a by school basis. I've tried to change many of the statements and use more sources. My goal is to keep this from being deleted, so I have no problem with removing things like "2.5 million." Please let me know your thoughts! I need the extra credit!! : ) Msu123 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - but needs sourcing to the financial press, not to college papers and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering this is the best source I could find, and it provides no real information upon which to base a proper article, I'd have to say there's insufficient coverage for a global encyclopedia. — Scientizzle 17:14, 19 February 2008 (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.