Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechSkills Academy


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

TechSkills Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is semi-promotional as it is (see the "History" paragraph), and I can't find any independent, substantial coverage through searches. GABHello! 15:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only 65 Google hits, all of them affiliated, social media, directory listings, and/or junk pages. No indication of any significance. I think the article qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this might come under the educational institute category, and is therefore not A7 eligible. Adam9007 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the biggest red flag is that the other headings are just lists of things, with nothing to say about any of them other than that they exist. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Runs just shy of the A7 G11 G12 of the previous version but does nothing to show notability. Bazj (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No outside coverage. I don't believe the subject is a legitimate educational institution, it's more of a commercial technology training program run by a company. Elaenia (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it isn't clear to me why a commercial technology training program run by a company can't be a legitimate educational institution, but that isn't an issue here anyway. Even if those were mutually exclusive classes of institutions, the article would survive if its topic were notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya, I brought it up in the context of the article being promotional in nature, which being commercial would probably have contributed. The website itself appears to be mostly an ad for the company instead of something along the lines of Coursera or Udacity. The domain itself was registered in August 2015 and is on a GoDaddy shared server which hosts nearly a million other websites, hardly the type of infrastructure for a well-known/established educational website. But yes, all of this is really just additional information to put the website in context and the issue of failing to establish notability would remain the biggest concern. Elaenia (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (as the subject seems to be just as much a corporation as it is an "educational organization"). Without reliable sources which are non-affiliated with the company, there is no justification for TechSkills Academy having an article on Wikipedia. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:30, 13 March 2016 (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.