Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenger Corporation

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Corporation[edit]

Nothing in the article to assert notablility —G716 <^T·_C> 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 05:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cases could be made that this article is an orphan, borderline advertising and it fails COI. At the very least needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. --MrShamrock (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes ""The company created the first academically organized emergency medicine review course in the U.S." and "Today, half the nation's ER docs use Challenger software on a CD to prepare for state board exams." from the American City Business Journals both predicate notability. I have already fought this battle with a few other admins/users(who have given their stamp of approval), and I don't see how those quotes alone (both from a notable source) fail to give the proper notability that meets Wikipedia standards. Hitting Random article a few times quickly brings me to a few articles that affirm the same or less notability than Challenger does. (i.e. WIOS, Lang Sen Wetland Reserve(which has been marked since late 2007 as needing attention), Mirza Hossein-Qoli, Battle Circle (novels)). If articles such as these can find a home here, and seem to pass the notability guidelines, then why not this one?

Philluminati (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There has been some attempt to improve the article. Sources still need work. Basie (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Unless I am really missing something, this one really does not seem to pass the notability threshold. It seems to be a small company with really very little third party coverage. There were a bunch of repeats of a press release about a strategic venture with HealthStream. Also I don't see a claim of notability about the company in the article. I have no doubt this is a real and active company but would normally require something to establish notability. Even the company's own press room doesn't have any real news. Unless the author can come up with some more material, I would encourage removal. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently an online or software based tech business offering exam prep courses to physicians. The links given are apparently to a local business paper and a single story in a local daily newspaper. The other links are not primarily about this firm, and a couple don't even mention it. Looks to me like yet another tech business that wants a Wikipedia article about itself for promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved a statement so the nominator's comment is again at the top of the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (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.