Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearson VUE (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Pearson PLC. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson VUE[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is an independent guides published to pass their test: [1]. Lots of others sources are available: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6]. These can count along with an APN News Channel source [7] to satisfy WP:AUD. Mottezen (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Keep Subject passes WP:NCORP and GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 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 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:38, 25 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×g 04:29, 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.