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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geteducated.com[edit]

Geteducated.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

First off, we all acknowledge that AfD is not about article improvement, so I don't really want this to focus on the promotional nature of the article, which I was about to address before I realised that it was probably going to be a waste of time.

It's easy to see how this article got past an overstretched new page patrol:

Newsweek magazine called GetEducated.com “a great source for weeding out phony colleges.” [2]. Other notable references have appeared in: CNN.com [8][3], the Wall Street Journal [4], CBS Marketwatch [5], Time [6], BusinessWeek [7], WIRED [8], Fortune [9], The New York Times [10], U.S. News & World Report [11], Forbes [12], Fast Company [13], and others.

It is my contention that when many of these bluffs are called, they fall away into obscurity. A quick look down the titles of the pieces referenced gives the general idea: only the Newsweek piece actually has "getEducated" in it. All the online sources I have clicked onto say basically the same thing: " 'The sector is...' says Vicky Phillips, CEO of Geteducated.com, 'we hope to...' " or some such - the definition of a trivial reference.

I haven't been able to review the offline source (the Newsweek one looks the best) and the NYT article looks promising, but I can't get past page 1 at the moment to see what the coverage was actually like. Needless to say, I worry about their quality.

I would like to know what other people think about this puffery (if sources could be found, I at least would reconsider). Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the creator was blocked for COI, and so is unlikely to respond. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is blatant (though well referenced) spam. The mentions in the sources I sampled were mainly trivial and part of list type articles. The site itself is merely a clearinghouse. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHOST. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT Delete — This site is not a hoax, spam or otherwise invalid site. I have used it many times, it has valid information about programs and schools and the content/articles are valuable. I am not sure why you believe it is puffery, but you may want to reconsider after a comparison of the geteducated site. When you compare it to one of the clearinghouses that have a bunch of useless information, you will know geteducated is not a spam. --Alhart32 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)— Alhart32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (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.