Explore Learning : The coverage from Mumsnet was clearly promotional in nature, and the coverage from UK Business Tech Awards did not establish how the company is notable either.  Searching online, I only located one ad on the Telegraph and multiple trivial mentions.  Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education ,  and United Kingdom .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unfortunately, no sources found for this entity.  They seem like a decent outfit, I just can't find any supporting documents.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Quite a lot of sources on the school [1] , seems to meet WP:GNG.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete .  I found numerous sources discussing the opening of new branches ( [2] , [3] ), an interview ( [4] ), a somewhat non-trivial mention on an article about tuition ( [5] ) and some bdaily articles ( [6] [7] [8] ).  I'm unsure of the reliability of bdaily as it seems to be a form of content marketing site, but the reference to the company being on the Sunday Times "Best Big Company To Work For" list starts to build a picture of notability.  But none of these are what led me to my vote, as they are all a little schmoozy.  Instead, I'm voting keep because of this Telegraph article which is not only non-trivial coverage, but also critical , which ameliorates the promotional tone of the others.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed vote after discussion below.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Still have sources about new branches opening.  CastJared ( talk ) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .  "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded.  The Keep ! voters above appear to have based their ! voters on;  1) The quantity of sources;  2) Sources based on announcements, interviews and PR;  3) Source that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs; and  4) Mere mentions and/or inclusions in a list.  None of those references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A Times article , A Guardian article … I think that plus the Telegraph article makes at least three sources meeting the NCORP criteria.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times "article" in an infomercial for the most part which relies totally on a "customer" testimonial and an interview with the CEO.  There's no "Independent Content" and it fails ORGIND The Guardian article is mostly a series of anecdotes from parents who are "customers" and information from the company itself.  There is insufficent in-depth information, outside of the anecdotes and the information about one of their locations, there's nothing that isn't available on their website, no independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc.  Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  The Telegraph article has no in-depth information about the company which wasn't provided by the CEO in his rebuttal of a criticism.  Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  HighKing ++ 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On what basis are you accusing the Times article of being an infomercial and why the scare quotes around customer?  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 22:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I meant to say it was advertorial (although infomercial isn't exactly wrong either) for the most part.  It uses "customer" testimonials to promote a positive view of the company as well as quotes/info from the company.  I use quotes around the word "customer" to highlight that the parents of the children attending the school are customers providing a positive testimonial and are therefore not unconnected to the subject company.  Rather than taking umbridge at my wording, I think you'll agree the article fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains no in-depth information which is "Independent Content" (as per WP:SIRS ).  HighKing ++ 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any evidence that the article is an advertorial.  Giving a positive account of a subject doesn't imply that money changed hands.  I also don't agree that an interviewee having a customer relationship with the subject implies that the article is not independent.  It doesn't seem unusual that an article about a company should interview customers of that company, and if the customer gives a positive testimonial, that doesn't automatically taint the independence of the article.  It would be a problem if the author of the article interviewed many customers and only selected the positive ones, but we don't have any evidence either way on that, and the fact that The Times is generally treated as a reliable source with editorial standards should indicate a degree of integrity in content published as an article.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Customer testimonials are considered Primary sources.  In the "Secondary Sources" subsection of ORGIND, it says A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved.  Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability.  In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: and goes on to list customer tesitominials or complaints .  The Times is of course a reliable source, but that reliability and integrity extends to faithfully reproducing the material, whether an interview or quotation or information from a website.  It does not imply the content meets our criteria for "Independent Content" or other content that meets our criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But we’re not using a primary source to establish notability, we’re using a secondary source that quotes several primary sources and puts them in context.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're missing the point.  I'm saying there's no "Independent Content".  You're saying you think a customer testimonial is independent.  I'm pointing you to a part of the Guidelines which shows you that customer testimonials are not independent - so much so they are considered primary sources, that's how un-independent they are.  I am not saying the article is a Primary source.  I'm saying that the article doesn't contain Independent Content and customer testimonials are not Independent Content.  HighKing ++ 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not saying customer testimonials are independent, I'm saying the Times article is independent.  We're not using the customer testimonial as the source.  We are using the Times article as the source.  The Times article uses several primary sources, not all of which are customer testimonials, to which the author adds her own observations and analysis, seemingly based on a visit to the centre.  The article combines the primary sources, including the non-independent ones, puts them in context and offers points and counterpoints from two headteachers.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you've wrapped your head around Alpha3031c's explanation below better than mine.  He is correct and it is what I was trying to help you understand but I think my advertorial label threw you into a different thought process.  HighKing ++ 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really satisified with the current THREE wrt CORPDEPTH, even if they are much better than "new branches opening" which might be the most "standard notices" of standard notices, but I intend review in more detail if there are any plausible sources not yet linked tommorow, so reserving my judgement until then.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [9] - here's another article of very similar structure to the Times one.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Barnards , I think one of the sticking points here is that you are looking at independence primarily from a functional perspective (i.e., editorial and authorial) whereas for WP:ORGIND we do want the content to be independent as well.  My interpretation would be closer to HighKing's for that reason.  Once you take out the direct quotes and other clearly attributed content, well... there just isn't very much left is there?  From the Times article, I'd say the two paragraphs (the ones before and containing the second mention) are maybe usable from that perspective if we squint a little, and that's 6 sentences, but it doesn't really have enough context to extract much.  Like, yes ok we'll write something about SuccessMaker into the article, what will be the actual content?  They do computer stuff?  I haven't found anything better either so far, this Guardian article might have been worth taking a look at but I'd say the ones you've found are better.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We only need enough to establish notability.  Article content can come from sources that we haven't put forward as notability-establishing, such as [10] and [11] (archive link: [12] ).  There are lots of little articles like these - not SIGCOV by themselves, but coverage is sustained across decades.  We can even use the non-independent content as article content with caution (noncontroversial details).  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A qualifying source is required to address the subject directly and in detail, it is not possible to use a source to establish notability if it does not provide sufficient context to write some content.  The sources I've found do not meet WP: CORPDEPTH so this is a delete from me.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose you’re right.  I’ll change my vote.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete insufficient sources, is a company so WP:NCORP applies, however is not met.  Karnataka ( talk ) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete