Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TutorMe

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. Since no reliable secondary sources were presented to support the !keep I'm going with User:HighKing's rationale. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TutorMe[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)

Full of promotional content, and only news sources that I can find are paid press releases from newswire. Fails WP:NWEB. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem fit for deletion when there are reliable sources throughout stating that they provide free education and it is linked next to existing pages in the same category. It should be revised to remove any impartiality, which it would appear myself and another impartial editor who reviewed it were doing/did to resolve existing issues and also the external link should be removed to further improve this page.WikiWonderWiki (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources included in the article that discuss the company as the primary subject of the articles. If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be edited. But this article is nowhere near WP:TNT. Angryapathy (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find 3 reliable sources, among the mess of "company listings", bloggy style news outlets and sources of questionable reliability, so I would appreciate if you could link some of these sources that you found. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 8 June 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.