Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuition agency


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tuition agency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no citations or references at all. There is nothing to establish that the subject of this article, a "tuition agency", exists anywhere other than Wikipedia as a term. The article has been tagged since May 2007 for needing citations for verification, yet there are none, nearly 6 years later. FeralOink (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * searched on google, bing, yahoo search, no primary, or secondary sources; speedy deletion? Editor400 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Usage

I conducted a web search on Google and Bing for tuition agency. The results indicate that "tuition agency" is a term used for entities that act as intermediary between those looking for tutors and tutors wishing to offer their services, with specific usage in Singapore. I don't know why this is necessary. Perhaps it is due to regulations or other factors specific to Singapore. Elsewhere, tutors and those searching for tutors use intermediaries such as newspaper advertisements (online or paper), public schools, community centers and bulletin boards.

There were zero (0) results returned for a Google News search for tuition agency.

In the U.S.A., the term "tuition agency" was used to describe something very different from a tutor clearinghouse or intermediary, unlike Singapore. See Tuition Agency Offers Top Job, The Vindicator (May 31, 1990) and Pressure builds on tuition agency at the state Capitol, Denver Post (January 15, 2000).

The fact that "tuition agency" is used in Singapore does not alter my concern regarding its suitability in current form for EN Wikipedia i.e. no references or citations, no mention of geographic specificity. There is also a history of fraud associated with "tuition agency" in Singapore, which at the very least, requires mention as a "Controversies" section. --FeralOink (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk  )  20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Keep. If there are reliable sources, the article should stay. Obviously, the article may need a lot of work, but that's no reason to delete. --  YPN YPN   ✡  01:13, 10 February 2013 (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.