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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edupristine[edit]

Edupristine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

A PROD was declined. Concern was: Promotional. For-profit online cram school. primary sources only. WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:ORG. Sources added later do not assert notablity in depth, number, and scope, and one is simply a repeat of information on another. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only independent sources provided only concern investment in the company. As it stands, it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. §everal⇒|Times 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - O.K., so vulture capitalists invested in this start up company. Great. That does not prove notability. WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (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.