Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Review

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Review[edit]

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

As is, the article fails to meet WP:N. Two of the three references come from the company site, and the third reference is 6 years old, from an article that isn't about the company per se, but just references a company spokesman commenting on the article topic. A search reveals no other references of note. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:12, 19 August 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could merge to Joern Meissner. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more recent references, for example, Business Week included this company in a fairly brief overview of GMAT preparation options in 2011. I vote to keep it in.Weblife (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to have grown from 3 sources to 7 and Google search has some hits... Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are some online sources, but this is quite marginal in notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (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.