Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScholarGeek


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ScholarGeek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to establish notability. Mostly sourced to press releases and the like. Claims that Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses ScholarGeek, but only links to a "Search for an academic program in Israel" page which doesn't mention ScholarGeek. Also claims that the company was a finalist at Vator start-up competition, but Vator itself appears to barely meet the notability guidelines; its awards do not appear to and deserve a brief mention at the main article at best (I don't think they can be used as an evidence of notability). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Spammy. Written by paid editor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above and Fails WP:ORG and is clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr.Doc James, paid editing is allowed in Wikipedia if the employer is disclosed and if it is not promotional. It is not meant to promote that website. Every student will check for complete details of scholarship provider, so I created it.Balaji E.M (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You described yourself as an experienced Wikipedian before you wrote these two articles. What other accounts have you edited with? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:ORG and is promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (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.