Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skillstrain (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skillstrain

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. Please see discussion at Talk:Train2Game#More sources needed. Note: I am also nominating related page Train2Game for the same reasons. If there is a consensus that the lawsuit is notable, I will create a page for it. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, from a survey of available sourcing, that this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP. It's also apparent that, while the article may have had its start as WP:PROMO, nothing has been offered to lift it above that level. Qworty (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS only extends to the Controversies of the company - not the company itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article Train2Game has largely the same content. This is the trading name of a not particularly notable company (Metropolitan International Schools Limited) which is effectively its parent. Perhaps there is scope for an article about its parent company, but I don't see that this is notable enough, and besides it seems to be primarily a criticism of the company rather than an NPOV article. Shritwod (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adycarter (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS appears to only be related to the company's controversies. Asides from that, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and WP:CORP failed. Zappa O Mati 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – SJ + 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, because I fail to see reliable sources covering the main topic under a non-trivial fashion. The controversies section is mostly made up with information from trivial, separate coverage that happened to be related with the topic. Also, the claim that it is notable for "its role in a British legal case regarding the Internet" is not in itself important enough to make the organization deserving of an article (and it is not referenced either). — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to understand from the article what Skillstrain is supposed to be, other than a company investigated (and found wanting) by BBC's Watchdog. Move the legal stuff to a relevant page on internet content/carrier liability and zap this. --AlisonW (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no lasting effects of the controversy and the school does not meet WP:CORP nor show that its an officially recognized institution per WP:SCHOOLS. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 2 February 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.