Talk:Huntington Learning Center

I challenge the speedy deletion based on the following:

1. All information provided is objective, verifiable facts 2. References have been sited 3. This is a relevant submission because Huntington Learning Center is recognized as the first U.S. supplemental education provider and sited as establishing an industry which is now tied directly to NCLB (No Child Left Behind) which provides federal funds for private, supplemental education services. 4. If you believe that the information in this submission is too marketing or advertising related, please edit but leave facts in. 5. This is important and valuable information for business research within supplemental education and individuals conducting research on the competitive landscape of this industry will find the basic references useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrown624 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One concern I have is that the sources are stale. While a 20-year-old article can demonstrate that the company has been around, it would also be completely lacking in current information. Second, while sources are not required to be online, using sources with electronic versions (e.g., more current news articles) would make it easier for other editors to independently verify the claims.
 * If the claim that they're the first supplemental education provider can be independently verified, I'll remove the speedy deletion tag. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?
Is it about Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., the holding company? Or is it about Huntington Learning Center, the chain?

I think the latter is the notable entity here. I intend to rewrite the article that way. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
I've got two issues with the sourcing. First, the claim that Huntington is the oldest chain is unsourced. The FundingUniverse profile says they're two years older than Sylvan, but it doesn't say they're the oldest.

Second, I'm not convinced that FundingUniverse is an independent secondary source. Now, given that there are some warts in the FU history (the Chapter 7 incident), I'll accept that it's written neutrally. However, more independent sources are good.

That said, I think what the article needs is cleanup, not deletion. I therefore contest the proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)