Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudyPoint (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudyPoint[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)

Possibly non-notable business, was AfD'd once before with a close of delete. I'm finding mentions but not significant coverage. Possible COI creation. valereee (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would advise you to expand that rationale for deletion. Just because a page was deleted through AfD before, does not mean it will never be notable. This could fall under WP:SK criteria 1. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jovanmilic97, weirdly, it seems to have had a close of delete but not actually been deleted? Am I misreading the article history? valereee (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Deleted in 2009 after AfD, but restored with full page history in 2011, see [1]. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka, ah! Thanks! valereee (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing does not appear for it to pass WP:NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is minimal, the article does not currently pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (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.