Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computeach


 * 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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Computeach

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet WP:ORG; no significant media coverage on computeach. Lea (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agreed 80.195.89.127 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, has a bit of news coverage.  . There are quite a few articles about this company but not sure about reliability of sources or whether they're reprints of press releases.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All three are press releases though, not independent news, as far as I can see. -- Lea (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Company non-notable except for their very aggressive online marketing (which is understandable, given their online platform.) However, I'd like to hear from page creator, and from ip user 85.189.69.9 who appears to have some affection this article (and almost exclusively this article). This all smells like very aggressive online marketing to me. IMHO, there isn't a single link associated with this article that couldn't have come from a marketing department. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Someone has added two links to press coverage, one with marginal, the other one with significant coverage. I'm not convinced though that this is enough to establish notability. -- Lea (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added the page originally because I've used them once and thought they deserved a mention. Other companies in their sector such as Learndirect have entries so it seemed only fair. They do have an aggressive TV advertising campaign and receive a lot of criticism online, therefore as people are talking about them they should have a Wikipedia entry. WhatDVD —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced leandirect warrants its own article either. It certainly doesn't assert notability at the moment. -- Lea (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I genuinely feel that companies such as Computeach and Learndirect warrant having Wikipedia entries because of the level of debate surrounding them online. Discussion is either biased for or against, therefore a neutral description on Wikipedia gives a balanced viewpoint for those wishing to research them before making career changing decisions. WhatDVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.69.9 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to established (online) news sources discussing this? -- Lea (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reviews websites featuring negative and positive comments, but obviously by their very nature they are not balanced. Sites such as blagger and ciao have heated opinions. News sites such as the links on the Wikipedia page don't promote discussion, they're news sites rather than social interaction sites. There are also other news articles such as Times Online. WhatDVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.69.9 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not convinced, sorry. Blagger and Ciao only feature personal reviews, and Times only mentions it peripherically. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Lea (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are quite correct, Blagger and Ciao do feature personal reviews, it's for this reason I felt that a neutral Wikipedia entry would benefit people researching Computeach. Google's pages are filled with discussion about them and it's all biased one way or the other, either through aggressive criticism or through aggressive PR from Computeach. -- WhatDVD —Preceding comment was added at 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to have more than trivial coverage by WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.