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. $Salvio$ 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Abacus[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic calculator. Notability tag placed.scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Only serious coverage is in VentureBeat and I have doubts whether they are a RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify: on the basis of multiple New York Times articles this may be notable IMO. But it needs to have the strong COI concerns addressed. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was heavily used as a useful utility, but there is several other ones now on the go. Also, I think to Stubify it, as an 8k article would be difficult. You could take 3-4k which wouldn't leave much. As well as that, it also been subject to a request of G11 from another editor in good standing, which was the reason I nominated it.scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a way to stubify it, if need be. I will do the work. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bri! College Abacus was indeed mentioned in a New York Times personal-finance column, on two separate weeks. But are you really sure that it therefore passes the WP:CORPDEPTH bar, and that there's enough WP:RS content out there to let us write a well-sourced article about the company? —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Piotrus. [Edit: If deletion is impossible, let's draftify. I can do the work, via script.] —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC); edited 08:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Piotrus. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There is the one New York Times mentions, but they only count as one source and it's not enough. Other then that, there doesn't seem to be anything to make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2020 (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.