Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GetEducated.com

[edit]
GetEducated.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: this article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geteducated.com.

Unnotable article and promotional piece posted by the webmaster of the site. Fails all aspects of WP:WEB but CSD A7 was declined by User:DGG because it "seems to indicate some notability, & has sources". However, as noted on the article's talk page, most of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the site, only a one-line mention, except those sources which are from GetEducated itself. The author, contributions, is the "website manager" for GetEducated, per his user talk page, and notes that he is "here to verify that colleges are linking to our reviews and ratings correctly, and to add to the general body of knowledge about online education in any way that I can." He also spammed numerous links to said site in various education articles. The site is not a notable site per WP:WEB, as its content has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (the only source with more than a line or two are press releases, non-reliable sources, and a single interview with the founder. The website has NOT "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" and the content is NOT "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The site fails WP:N as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

It also fails WP:CORP, for which it was notability tagged, per this excellent analysis by User:Amatulic (copied from the article's talk page with notes per some updates made to the article):

The notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP, specifically the part (shortcut WP:SIGCOV) regarding significant coverage. Mere "mentions" are not sufficient. Let's go through the sources.
  1. Whitney, Lance (7/16/2009). "Survey: Best Buys in Online Business Colleges". CNet News.
    This is a blog. It's a blog on Cnet, but still, it's a blog. The author isn't an editor or writer for Cnet, he's a blogger on Cnet. This seems like incidental coverage, failing WP:CORP.
  2. Gangemi, Jeffrey (8/18/2005), Do Online MBAs Make the Grade?, BusinessWeek.com.
    Trivial mention. Not significant coverage. This does not confer notability.
  3. Fisher, Anne (9/29/2003), Will I End Up Getting Scammed if I Pursue an Online MBA?, Fortune.
    I don't know what to make of this, it looks like part of the editorial section in a column called "Dear Annie". This doesn't appear to be coverage by the publication, but by a columnist who answers reader mail. I'll give this the benefit of the doubt.
  4. Carol Frey (August 19, 2009). "Different Paths to a College Degree". U.S. News & World Report.
    Does not appear to mention geteducated.com anywhere in the article. Not a source of coverage that can be used to confer notability on the subject. [REMOVED]
  5. Phillips, Vicky; Yager, Cindy (1998). The Best Distance Learning Graduate Schools: Earning Your Degree Without Leaving Home. The Princeton Review.
    Article unavailable online, but authored by the company CEO, suggesting another conflict of interest. Essentially self-published source by geteducated.com - cannot be used to claim notability. [REMOVED]
  6. "How to Hang On to Your House; Job Advice: The Best Places to Send Your Resume; Going Back to School Online; How to Keep Your Hard Earned Cash Away From Scams and Charges". Your Bottom Line. CNN. 3/7/2009.
    CEO Phillips is interviewed briefly, the name of the company is mentioned 3 times, but the coverage seems incidental in the context of the larger piece. Possibly.
  7. Top Ranked Best Buys - Online Master's Degrees in Engineering, GetEducated.com.
    Self-published. Doesn't count.
  8. Singel, Ryan (2/2/2005), Database Fights Diploma Mills, Wired.com.
    The CEO is quoted on the general subject of diploma mills, but the company itself gets only a trivial mention. The article is not covering the company, but another subject, and is simply quoting the CEO.
  9. Perry, Marc (9/23/2009), Unmuzzling Diploma Mills: Dog Earns M.B.A. Online.
    Another blog by a "Wired Campus Blogger". Need I say more?
WP:CORP states right up front: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." WP:SIGCOV further requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail."

This article, being created by the webmaster and with a heavy promotional tone (some of which has since been removed) appears to have been crafted purely to promote this site and attempt to give it notability through Wikipedia, rather than its already actually being notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with some regrets. I believe the author is trying to edit in good faith, honestly and up-front disclosing a conflict of interest, but without fully understanding the rules. contributions's editing activity does strongly suggest a conflict of interest even without the disclosure on the editor's user page. In fairness I'll note that many of this person's edits are maintenance edits on links to geteducated.com that other editors have added. Geteducated.com does contain some interesting and relevant content that could be (and is) cited in other articles, although I believe it's a borderline reliable source and should be reviewed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. But to have an entire article about the site? I don't believe it qualifies according to Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when you closely examine the sources. The author contributions has requested on Talk:GetEducated.com that the article be moved to the author's userspace for further developement, and I have no problem with that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete pending a check of the market share with respect to similar companies. That I declined a speedy does not mean I think the person actually notable--the standard for speedy is much lower. If when I decline speedy I think the person is actually actually notable, I generally say so and remove the notability tag from the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst COI is an issue, that's not a matter for consideration here; the only question for here is, is this a notable subject, and could an article be written about it? I have tagged it for rescue simply because I think it is a borderline case on notability. I agree with the assessment of the references, but wonder if others can be found, and if it can be fixed. DGG was quite right to decline it as speedy. I will wait and see what other people think, before !voting here.  Chzz  ►  04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  Chzz  ►  04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhere between a strong undecided and a very weak keep combined with stubification. There might be enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as notable per WP:WEB Criterion #1, summarized as: the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, "trivial coverage" being defined by the examples: (1) newspaper articles that only report the URL (2) Articles that only report when the site is updated (3) A brief summary of the nature of the content or the URL (4) descriptions in internet directories or online stores. I think the following sources I was able to find (barely) pass the "non-trivial" test:
CNNMoney The bulk (+50%) of the article seems to be based on information sourced to geteducated.com content and the owner Vicky Phillips. The actual website is mentioned 3 times.
CNNMoney The website is mentioned 3 times.
LATimes Website mentioned 3 times; Majority of content sourced to site owner Vicky Phillips.

The following mentions, while from reliable sources, are probably too trivial, especially when a "brief summary of the nature of the content" is considered trivial. There are easily a half-dozen more like this; do a half-dozen trivial mentions add up to something?

BusinessWeek The website is mentioned twice.
NYTimes One mention of the website.
NYTimes A one-sentence mention
Forbes A one-sentence mention

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - longstanding spam for a non-notable operation (one with an ugly history of spamming Wikipedia, but not notable in the outside world for much of anything). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although most sources are small mentions there is a very significant number of sources, some of which (see sources mentioned by LinguistAtLarge) in my opinion are non-trivial (at least as defined by the guideline). - EdoDodo talk 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a significant number of trivial mentions still doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Included in that list is an extremely small number of non-trivial mentions, which doesn't quite meet WP:SIGCOV. That's why I voted to delete "with regrets" above, because I think this is a borderline case leaning toward the "delete" side, but a few more non-trivial sources may shift it over to "keep". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had the same doubts as you, but even with just the sources provided I'm already leaning towards the keep side per the reasoning provided by LinguistAtLarge. - EdoDodo talk 10:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam article about non-notable website. Fails notability requirements for websites/businesses. SnottyWong talk 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by LinguistAtLarge. They add to something, in the meaning that (a)has received coverage from several sources and (b)there is some material to build a verifiable article. In this sense it passes notability, even if perhaps by a hair. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this article. --Cyclopiatalk 13:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources cited do not have significant coverage, trivial mentions or referrals do not establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google news link at the top of the AFD shows 177 results, that notable news sources mentioning them. Market Watch says:
According to Vicky Phillips, founder of GetEducated.com, "Almost one million online learners visit GetEducated.com annually seeking advice on which of the 406 online MBA degrees we review best meet their needs. The number one question our counselors receive relates to affordability. Consumers want to know where they can obtain a high quality degree at a reasonable cost. We launched our Best Buy awards to help spotlight America's hidden gems of affordability offered through distance learning.
They quote from these guys in news articles dedicated to good and bad online colleges, saying which ones are legitimate and which ones are a scam. Dream Focus 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quote from the site's founder on a web site that is republishing the information from businesswire. From their about us page: "Thousands of member companies and organizations depend on Business Wire to transmit their full-text news releases, regulatory filings, photos and other multimedia content to journalists, financial professionals, investor services, regulatory authorities and the general public worldwide." I believe that it's a press release, not significant coverage from a reliable source. Also, many mentions in notable news sources does not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification about source businesswire is a compilation site for press releases; anything you find there is to be regarded as not from a reliable source, to put it mildly. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of millions of articles, Google shows 177 hits? While Google hits aren't a good metric, that seems small to me. Also, regarding Dream Focus's "keep" vote: a website containing nothing but press release is not a reliable source. Dream Focus hasn't made an argument for notability here. So far, I don't see any convincing arguments above to keep — in fact the only valid one admits passing notability "by a hair". I believe that this encyclopedia is helped by removing this article, as it also removes an apparent source of promotional spam. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy and if significant coverage can be shown, recreate then. I've carefully looked at the above discussions, and agree it is close to showing notability, but for me, it does not do so. The references provided currently are simply too tenuous to represent significant coverage (to my mind). Despite being flagged for rescue and having quite a few people look at it, nobody has managed to add any substance. A close call, but I think we need to be definitive in the need for some significant coverage, and I simply don't see it here. I note the view of Cyclopia that, in their opinion, it passes GNG (just) - personally I think it just barely does not, and I have to say, "I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting" is a very weak reason to keep. If this does go towards 'no consensus-keep' then this will be a very tricky article to maintain due to the lack of good sources, hence I feel I needed to !vote to delete it - and I kinda do hope the closing admin will consider that point; whilst NC = keep, keeping because 'no good reason to delete' makes for poor articles in the future - especially with corporate stuff, where it is 'challenging' for volunteers to separate the true RS from PR.  Chzz  ►  18:13, 24 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GetEducated.com&oldid=1137877295"