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. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Performance[edit]

Learning Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable company without the barest sign of satisfying WP:CORP. Google for ("Learning Performance" "John Dibley") gets 3 hits, this article, and the company's websites. Google for ("Learning Performance" "Heather Starbuck") manages to get 7 hits - this article, the company's websites, and business directories. [1] The prod tag was removed with the objection: "Learning Performance is mentioned in plenty of external sites, but without reference to Heather Starbuck or John Dibley. They do not run things personally. Also added about Study Skills," which fails to address the obvious problems regarding verifiability and notability:

  1. "mentioned in plenty of external sites" - where? There are no sources in the article. The only external links are to the company's websites and these only show the company has their own web presence, nothing more.
  2. "They do not run things personally" is not even hinted to in the article, and in any case it does not explain why any reputable source who wrote about the company would want to omit information as basic as the name of its founder, which brings us to the conclusion that...
  3. There probably are no external sources independent of the company that have written about it in detail.

If no independent reliable sources have written anything about the company, we should not have an article on it. Resurgent insurgent 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has potential but needs a major rewrite per nom in lieu of deletion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem with the education suppliers industry in the UK is their low level of internet use and a limited community in which to demonstrate credentials. I was hoping my article might help to address this and start a trend. Having reviewed the verifiability and notability pages I agree that the article I've written doesn't currently meet Wikipedia's very sensible rules. But as Baccyak4H states, this article has potential. Whilst there are newspaper articles and reports on school websites about us, there are only a limited number of relevant internet references that could be incorporated into the article. I'm about to go on holiday for three weeks, however I do believe that I can put together something that is more relevant to Wikipedia. Can we consider either leaving this article as a stub until I return, or simply reviewing my progress in late April/early May? Davidestarbuck 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin - Please userfy to User:Davidestarbuck/Learning Performance --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More