Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholarships.com


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Scholarships.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Article as it stands is spam. This website has recieved no independant detailed coverage on the news nor in academic journals. Fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: spam. Passing mention here suggests the only really notable websites are Fastaid.com (23,000 results), FastWeb (495,000 results), College Board, Peterson's (295,000 results) and The Princeton Review (324,000 results). This is compared to a staggering 81,600,000 results for "Scholarships.com +college". Ottre 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam on a non-notable website. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - spam info. Versus22 talk 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete given the absolutely grotesque number of links to the site itself, this appears to be an incredibly inept attempt at "SEO" / spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a spam article Unionsoap (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly, and stub. To my mild surprise, the site is at least referenced as a scholarship source on the MSNBC link and the WSJ link that are all cited as references to the first paragraph.  This isn't really a very good reference style, but the site does seem to have topical coverage in multiple, general-interest reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Of the nine references currently in place, four appear to the reliable. Of those four, three of them appear to be trivial mentions (wsj, seattlepi, and wash times). The msnbc article is a one-paragraph mention, but still a bit trivial. All-in-all, it makes a case for notability, but I don't know if it really meets the requirements of WP:WEB.  Either way you look at it, it needs cleanup and stubification at the very least. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Contesting Deletion - I respectfully and wholeheartedly contest the assertion that this is some ploy and should be considered "SPAM" and hope you will read, review and reconsider the submission.

To begin with, just in case it was the links to our scholarship winners that were causing this recommendation, I removed them all, at least for the time being. I thought they would add credibility as references, but assume you saw them only as links to a page on our site. As for this being an SEO ploy, I assure you it is not.

This is simply a case of feeling we should be recognized and noted in this wiki. We have edu sites of colleges and high schools alike directing their students to Scholarships.com, which I can assure you they would not if they didn't recognize Scholarships.com as a legitimate site and service that benefits their students and fits the brief description in our wikipedia entry. I have stripped the definition down to hopefully appease those questioning the intention here. Please bear in mind that I am new to this and am just learning how best to write wiki entries, but intend to write many more in the future, on many different subjects, so any help will be much appresiated.

To address these nomination for deletion:

Passing mention and # of results: I think there are a sufficient # of media mentions from reputable sources to justify inclusion here. I would like to assert, also, that just because Carol Isakson doesn't mention Scholarships.com, does not mean it is not a notable scholarship search site. How it is even possible we were not mentioned makes absolutely no sense, considering how long Scholarships.com has been around and the degree to which it has excelled. I didn't see the specific entry where the other sites are mentioned and we are not. Would you please provided that? As for the # of results - Is the fact that there were so many results what is making Scholarships.com look bad in your eyes? I don't understand, but I saw less than 11.5% of #claimed - 9,270,000 for "Scholarships.com +college" when I clicked the link supplied. And did you look at the results? Many are "collegescholarships.com" or "college-scholarships.com" and, as our domain is an actual word, this is apt to happen a lot, Whereas for Fastaid and FastWeb it would not. Perhaps this is causing the inflated number of results being attributed to Scholarships.com. I certainly cannot imagine how else we would have even the smaller number of 9 million, as I doubt we have significantly more pages than the other sites mentioned. Further explanation or insight with regard to this entire exercise and result would be very much appreciated, though.

Delete; non-notable (Nick): I reduced the entry down to a basic, summary description. I believe it to be a neutral one, and welcome any further suggestions.

Delete; spam info (Versus22): As stated, I have removed most of the entry and consider it neutral and brief. Your comments/suggestions appreciated.

Delete; "grotesque # of links" (Starblind): Please see my above response to Ottre with regard to links if it is the alleged 81,600,000 results and my removal of all the links to the winners' essays if those are the links to our site you meant. Also, I do not understand the incindiary language with which you feel it necessary to make this accusation, but maybe the reason it appears to be an "incredibly inept" attempt at SEO/spam is because it is actually not such an attempt at all. Perhaps the lack of skill at doing such a thing could convince you that is not my intention at all if you chose to look at it from that perspective.

Delete; "spam article" (Unionsoap): I don't know what else to say, beyond my above refutation that this is spam in any way. I understand and appreciate the aversion to and vigilant protection against spam and am by no means a perpetrator of such tactics. Additionally, I have noticed you yourself currently being questioned over your wikipedia membership and behavior, all of it recent due to the fact that you are apparently quite new here.
 * I must admit that I am feeling a bit abused in some of these discussions. I don't think they give new participants much weight, so don't be to concerned about my comment. Good luck with your article. Oh, and please sign your comments. Unionsoap (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Thanks and yes, we have been covered by major media on occasion over the years. Moreover, we were mentioned on Oprah years ago, but I do not have a link to the coverage. Additionally, Scholarships.com provided a drop-in scholarship search for "CollegeJournal", Wall Street Journal's college site for a few years.

Neutral - Thank you, too. I believe I have significantly cleaned-up and stubbified the entry, though I am not entirely sure I know what stubbify means. I presume it has to do with removing links and content, though.

Thank you for your consideration. chicagoscholar

For further support, I ask you to consider these edu links to Scholarships.com. Does this not lend legitimacy and notability?

http://www.uncw.edu/intprogs/abroad-financialaid.htm

http://www.chc.edu/scps.aspx?id=92

http://www.uwplatt.edu/library/guides/money.html

http://www.winona.edu/financialaid/455.asp

Chicagoscholar (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – "Chicagoscholar" + Based in Highland Park, IL = likely conflict of interest. Hence, I have tagged article as such. MuZemike 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to MuZemike - Chicago is a city of 3,000,000 people, 9,000,000 in the Chicagoland area. I am sure most of these folks don't work for Scholarships.com. The content has been edited and is quite neutral in tone and furthermore is written about a relevant, noteworthy topic. Why is this not the focus, but instead users stretch to try to show why it shouldn't be published? To assert that it is likely that the writer has a COI because they live in Chicago seems a stretch. This just feels like people piling on when I have done what was asked of me to shape the entry to what is desired.

--Chicagoscholar (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It IS a conflict of interest when you associate Scholarships.com as "[your] company" as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capricorn42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Kingturtle Both comments are absurd, the first libelous. A Splash page? Did you explore the site at all? As for the assertion that no for-profit offering a free service is to be trusted, I would like to know whether you use Google or Yahoo? Watch TV? Listen to the radio? --Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) --Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete That site is just a splash page with pop up advertisements. When you see a "free" service that is for profit, that's a red flag right there. I'd say more but they might sue me or Wikimedia for defamation. Kingturtle (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. The 'refences' are all passing mentions that prove that the place exists, but nothing more. The creator wants to claim that the article is less promotional than that of Fastweb.com, but the latter has two references that discuss the actual company (even if briefly). Drmies (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To make myself more clear: There is not significant coverage. NONE of the citations in the article refer to stories ABOUT Scholarships.com. In each of those instances, Scholarships.com gets a mention deep into the article. What exactly is notable about Scholarships.com? I can't find anything. Yes, it's been a company for 10 years, but so has the hardware store down my street. Scholarships.com is not noteworthy. Kingturtle (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scholar, may I suggest something to read? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Drmies, Good one. Point taken. It is just frustrating reading some of these attacks, particularly that one. Also, maybe the media didn't go into great depth about Scholarships.com on multiple occasions because they didn't bother. Not because the site is not legitimate and deserving of the press. Oh, and I will read that book, but only if the publisher is a not-for-profit.

These are just from the last couple of days. Do these help? http://www.themusiciansite.com/2009/03/scholarships-for-music.html
 * Response to Drmies' "spam" assertion - Not spam and the site has been finding scholarships for students, for over a decade. Every bit of information in the entry is accurate and it has been noted on legitimate sites, is linked to by over a thousand sites. If it merely "existed" or was a "splash page" as Kingturtle asserted, the educational institutions wouldn't link to them, would they? I don't think anybody reading the entry has gone and conducted a search, given the site the benefit of the doubt and researched it as a possible legitimate site and deserving entry. Why is that? --Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More References to Scholarships.com

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/03/02/on-the-joys-of-retirement/ (Note - listed by an independent source, alongside sites being defended herein)


 * I DID look for coverage (thank you very much), discussion by independent sites--in-depth coverage, that is, not mere mentions. Please check the conspiracy theories at the door--and assume good faith, as I do for you. That institutions link to them does not mean the site is notable; it means institutions link to them. They do not assume liability. The last two webarticles you mention, I do not consider these to be posted on reliable sources. Besides, both only mention the site; as for the second, HomefrontSix may be independent from Scholarships.com, but that user also has not established credibility. That's plain to see. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not accused you of neglecting to do research, at least not intentionally. You seem to be the only one who is willing to pursue any sort of discourse over the matter. My question and assertion is that nobody has really gone through the site in question thoroughly and the general feeling is not that of inclusion. It was more specifically directed at Kingtoad, who called the site a "splash page" which, I'm sorry is absurd. That is not meant to be combative, it's just that it is absurd and nobody who spent ten minutes researching, five even, could make that statement. You must concede that. As to your assertion that no substantial, credible reference has been listed, I still feel msnbc having published what they did is substantial enough for the entry. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but please don't tell me the overall vibe here is not accusatory and cynical, if you read all the "delete" entries at once. And surely you must see that I am invested in this, and that this is a matter of principle to me. I believe this entry should stand and have spent far more time than I intended defending it. I will continue to do so. Do you have a position on any of my refutations at the beginning of all this? I noticed they didn't come back with further comment yet and am anxious to know where I stand. Believe me, I am taking what I can from this, frustrated though I may be. It is still very educational and helpful. I really do appreciate your comments, I sincerely do. Lastly, let's be fair here, to open the way you did and say I should assume good faith as you are doing for me is tough to read when the first thing you posted accuses me of spamming, etc. and that I "want to claim" something. That sounds like you quite don't assume good faith, doesn't it? And, may I remind you, I am not being combative, just asking you see my side is all.--Chicagoscholar (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never accused you of spamming; I did say that the article was spam--that is, promotional and not verified by notable sources, and I stand by that, though I readily concede that from your position that sounds like a horrible thing; I'm sorry, it's one of those shorthand terms that we employ because on this forum we do run into a lot of awful stuff (just look around). And I will add that "spam" covers a lot of things: I do not believe, for instance that your article goes too far into the realm of spam in tone, for instance, though the website is mentioned an awful lot. But at least it's not stuffed with awful superlatives. The MSNBC thing, that's all-too brief and it describes, in three sentences, what the site does rather than discuss and evaluate it. That's what "significant," "in-depth," and all means. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be on that side of the argument, and it is difficult to keep one's cool.
 * Note, I never remarked on Splash--I looked at the site and did not have anything popping up, but I'm also not in the position to doubt another's experience (different settings, browser, etc.). I'm not going to address every point in detail, except for this one: a fairly large number of passing mentions (incl. in the Washington Post, cited below), for me, do not add up to significant coverage by a few reliable sources. That a lot of editors make similar comments is probably because they all have the same or a similar opinion...but not all of them, see below. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I looked at this one early on and decided not to tag it. (Slightly unusual, that...) I quote from the Washington Times article referenced: "Some of the best-known scholarship search sites include Fast Web, Scholarships.com and the College Board's Scholarship Search (http://apps.collegeboard.com/cbsearch–ss/welcome.jsp)". That to me indicates a certain degree of notability. I do not find the current version of the article under discussion to be spam, nor did I find it so when I first looked at it. (Things that are .com in an article are certain to be investigated by me.) I must confess that I do object to the pop-up on the subject's website, but I object to any pop-up ad anywhere. (I rarely see them because I block ads - this one gets through because it seems to be actually a pop-under.) Pop-ups are not the heart of the matter here. The creator of the article seems willing to tailor the article to our specifications, so the question is notability. In view of the above quotation and other references, I would say notability was established to my satisfaction. I am only one voice in the discussion, however. Peridon (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no significant mentions in any of the references in the article. Just listings that the company exists and is in the market. A quote saying " Some of the best known are x y and z " is not significant unless it actually discusses them--otherwise it is just a random mention. DGG (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems the major and continually argued point of contention is the reference and whether msnbc or any of the others give enough information about Scholarships.com to keep the entry. There are those who say it does and others who argue the references are not thorough or strong enough. Who, ultimately, decides whether the entry remains? If the entry is kept on Wikipedia, do the deletion suggestions come off at that point? Again, I am new to this. --Chicagoscholar (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmies - Got it and point taken. I see that it was not your intent to imply I was a spammer and appreciate your taking the time to clarify. My thanks to you for continuing to communicate and explain your position and your issues with the entry and reasons for not feeling it should stand. Though I disagree, as do a few others, with your position that the references are not viable, I do respect both your position and your candor. --Chicagoscholar (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete WP:SPAM w/ very poor quality article. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:28, 7 March 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.