Talk:TutorVista

message: Does this really warrant an article? I did a search and didn't really find anything that wasn't a puff piece or something put out by the company. I found one article that briefly mentions TutorVista, but that doesn't really in itself mean it's notable.  Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Parts of this page read like an advertisement, and are even lifted straight from the company's page.  Phrases like the "leading online tutoring company in the world" and "Tens of thousands of students have used TutorVista to achieve their academic goals" (uncited and unverifiable) do not belong in an article claiming the neutral point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoran99 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added advert tag 

message: Added History block 
~ Bosky101  —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Request to hang-on,
I will remove any content that seems to be blatantly advertising. bosky101 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have assumed good faith and removed the CSD tag, I'll also edit out material that appears to be advertising. You'll need to address notability by providing multiple independent reliable sources, this article may be listed again under CSD G11 - advertising or nominated at {{WP:AFD]] so I recommend you address these concerns quickly. Gnangarra 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added one reference, an SF Chronicle article, and removed the notability tag.  The company is clearly notable: 100+ news articles according to Google archive, some in major publications.  The article is about the company, not the web service specifically.  Lots of people are apparently using its services nationwide.  It got $12 million funding lead by Sequoia Capital, which is almost by definition notable.  For a start-up technology company that's like winning an Olympic medal or Nobel Prize.  Nevertheless it could still use better sourcing -- html sources would be better than .pdf, and no need to link to the company's own press releases.  It's funding, for instance, is covered on forbes.com.  Wikidemo 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @wikidemo : thanks ...i've added cites from forbes.com, the economost, korean times (that are not pdf's) and will add a few more adding cites,references bosky101 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older edits 

message: This company was bought by Pearson along with Educational Testing Service and a bunch of other companies which is merged and re-structured to some extent. Is Tutor Vista still a separate company? There should be a massive editing to merge the three Pearson company articles, Pearson, Pearson PLC, and Pearson Education. Additionally, companies Pearson purchased and changed should be listed in the single Pearson article that results instead of these small outdated articles about companies that may not really exist any more in the original form. The info gathered seems from the companies themselves, primary sources, that are not objective and misleading since they may be defunct and just exist on the web from earlier times. Primofacts (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support but I would not give more than half a line in the Pearson PLC article because the notability of TutorVista has not been demonstrated. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged in as there were no objections. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearson bought this company   

message: Their phone number doesn't work and emails aren't responded to.
If so, I think we should write so on the page.
It has to be. It just redirects to byjus.com
--Dyl1G (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is TutorVista permanently closed?