Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Education
Appearance
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Blake Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Publishing company that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Mikeblas (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete agree with the promotional tone, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree that the page looks WP:PROMO-- it looks sincere to me, created way back in 2006, but simply fails to meet WP:NCORP and would appear unlikely to. I couldn't find any RSs. Cabrils (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I rarely weigh on on Australian subjects, but this one has only two dead links to apparently primary sources, and I didn't find any WP:RS in a gSearch. If someone could provide some, maybe I'd change my mind. Jacona (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2022 (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.