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.
Comment - "www.pcquest.com" source might not be considered reliable and it also included info rom the subject for it would considred not independent. "accountancyage.com/" look like a promo and might considered not a reliable source. :Indiaeducationdiary" is considered not reliable and not independent sources as the subject make up part of the content. "apnnews.com" is reliable but might not be independent as the subject makes up some of the content.
Cassiopeia(
talk)06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a lazy source assessment. Why do you say "might" and "looks like"? Is it independent, yes or no? If no, why? Does it say "sponsored post"? Is the author an advertiser? If there is no connection with the subject, then it is independent! As for your claims that the subject makes up "some of the content" of an article. What do you mean? All these articles primarily talk about this topic. They count towards GNG and NCORP.
Mottezen (
talk)
06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Pearson PLC: While I have nothing against very brief articles this is briefer than one might wish. The sole claim to notability that I can see is 165 countries with >5000 test centres. So it has notability from size. But more is required. Big corporations are not notable from being big, they have notability from the thing that allowed them to become big. Pure bigness is not genuine notability.
The references are interesting. I am discounting the org's own site because it can only verify simple facts, not notability. It also misses its target since the web site has been redesigned. I can't comment m the Tullahoma News because "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons" the
GDPR renders it unavailable. The third reference does show notability, but the is not enough.
WP:THREE is an essay, but makes substantial points. I see one, potentially two useful references depending in what is in the Tullahoma news.
What I cannot see is that this article has sufficient about it to stand alone. I only see sufficient at present to suggest it be redirected to and merged into the main Person article
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirect, merge, or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge+redirect into
Pearson PLC, perhaps creating a new section "products" in order to group broader Pearson products if required. If such a section wouldn't fit in, redirect w/o merge.
Casspedia (
talk)
19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge with parent article, since sourcing aside this doesn't seem to be independently notable in any way (three refs, one is to the company's own site and
one is a very passing mention). jp×g04:29, 13 May 2021 (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.
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.
Comment - "www.pcquest.com" source might not be considered reliable and it also included info rom the subject for it would considred not independent. "accountancyage.com/" look like a promo and might considered not a reliable source. :Indiaeducationdiary" is considered not reliable and not independent sources as the subject make up part of the content. "apnnews.com" is reliable but might not be independent as the subject makes up some of the content.
Cassiopeia(
talk)06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a lazy source assessment. Why do you say "might" and "looks like"? Is it independent, yes or no? If no, why? Does it say "sponsored post"? Is the author an advertiser? If there is no connection with the subject, then it is independent! As for your claims that the subject makes up "some of the content" of an article. What do you mean? All these articles primarily talk about this topic. They count towards GNG and NCORP.
Mottezen (
talk)
06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Pearson PLC: While I have nothing against very brief articles this is briefer than one might wish. The sole claim to notability that I can see is 165 countries with >5000 test centres. So it has notability from size. But more is required. Big corporations are not notable from being big, they have notability from the thing that allowed them to become big. Pure bigness is not genuine notability.
The references are interesting. I am discounting the org's own site because it can only verify simple facts, not notability. It also misses its target since the web site has been redesigned. I can't comment m the Tullahoma News because "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons" the
GDPR renders it unavailable. The third reference does show notability, but the is not enough.
WP:THREE is an essay, but makes substantial points. I see one, potentially two useful references depending in what is in the Tullahoma news.
What I cannot see is that this article has sufficient about it to stand alone. I only see sufficient at present to suggest it be redirected to and merged into the main Person article
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirect, merge, or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge+redirect into
Pearson PLC, perhaps creating a new section "products" in order to group broader Pearson products if required. If such a section wouldn't fit in, redirect w/o merge.
Casspedia (
talk)
19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge with parent article, since sourcing aside this doesn't seem to be independently notable in any way (three refs, one is to the company's own site and
one is a very passing mention). jp×g04:29, 13 May 2021 (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.