Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

With the given references, I don't see how notability is established. Further discussion is on the article's talk page, but 2/5 references appear to be self-submitted (and maybe paid) listings on sites; 2/5 are press releases, one of which was definitely written by the company; remaining 1/5 is their own Web site. Hananekosan (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of references at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - First let me welcome you to Wikipedia and just point out that one of the responsibilities with nominating an article for deletion here at AFD is to review the criteria for deletion at Before. With that said, on to my Keep opinion.  The company is one of the nations largest suppliers of student loans.  Which can be found by just checking Google News, as shown here .  The same search can be done by just clicking on the "Find Sources" news, right above your nomination.  I also did an additional search at Google Scholar, as shown here  and found that they are considered "Experts" in their field, which qualifies them for inclusion.  This is further supported by a quick search at Google Books as shown here .  Though they are not the specific subject of any of the 100+ listed, looking through a few, I did find they were cited as experts in their field.  I'll add additional references and cites to the article itself over the next couple of days.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for the education. I now see that my initial opinion was wrong. However, I did try to find additional references before the AfD; most everything I turned up was similar to the Google News result set (bankruptcy hearings/legal documents from their borrowers' bankruptcies), which do not help establish notability. Those, combined with the fact that the majority of the references in the article are not secondary sources, as I explained on the talk page and here, and, IMO, notability was not met. However, Google Scholar turns up more relevant and secondary sources which do establish notability. Therefore, I have seen the light and it says "Keep". I apologize for the mistake. To show good faith, I made some edits to the article as well. Humbly, Hananekosan (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2009 (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.