Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teach Away


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Teach Away

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has been around for years but each iteration of it seems to be primarily promotional. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the company. Google search brings up. ... disco spinster   talk  18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Europe,  and Latin America.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability, especially with the higher requirements of WP:NCORP. Toadspike (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:NORG, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. - Hatchens (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM. No independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Easy to find independent coverage. There's a 3-page feature article in Canadian Business. There's also this [Globe & Mail] article that has come coverage. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete References fail WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Both the "Canadian Business" reference above and the "Globe and Mail" reference relies entirely and solely on information provided by the company and fails WP:ORGIND as it does not contain any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.  HighKing++ 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Globe and Mail and Canadian Business are (were) major national outlets. The Globe is the Newspaper of record. WP:GNG is met - to suggest that they've thrown out their fact-checking is improbable. Nfitz (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the WP:SIRS section of the GNG which explicitly refers to NCORP and the stricter approach to references used to establish notability of companies/organizations - so saying GNG is met isn't the complete story, you need to consider NCORP also. Also, nobody suggested that those publications threw out their fact checking - but there's a difference between a publication faithfully reproducing "what was said" and reporting "what was said" accurately (a form of fact checking) and a publication that *analyses" what was said and *double checks* the content of what was said for accuracy. In the absence of any evidence of the latter, therefore and according to WP:ORGIND (which requires fact checking that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject") it does not meet the criteria for establishing notability (although, of course, it may still be used within the article to support a fact or other information).  HighKing++ 21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (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.