Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study.com (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Study.com[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)

Previously deleted in 2016, but the present content is more extensive and would require a second AfD. Remains highly promotional, the only contribution of its presumably paid ditor. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets WP:GNG. versacespace talk to me 17:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @VersaceSpace, you don’t say how how exactly they “clearly meet GNG”? you got any links to RS that shows they “clearly meet GNG”? Celestina007 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: the listed references demonstrate notability. versacespace talk to me 23:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace, oh? Is that right? Could you provide us amongst the listed references any WP:THREE that shows or substantiates their notability? Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: refs 4, 8, 10, 11. And stop talking down to me while you're at it. versacespace talk to me 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 #8 and #11 are not the national networks, but a local edition of the network, reporting in a promotional manner on a local program affecting a trivial number of people. #9 similarly. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Per G11 as an overt promotional article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant spam, no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (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.