Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.A. Gapuz Review Center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Fails WP:CORP, no third-party sources other than promotional content. KrakatoaKatie 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- R.A. Gapuz Review Center (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)
Non-notable review center, majority of its content was copied directly from Philippine_Nursing_Licensure_Exam#June_2006_examination_controversy — JL 09 talk (site)contribs 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find lots of google hits but they all have suspiciously similar promotional text, so I'm skeptical that this organisation meets WP:CORP. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The review center gained notoriety during the 2006 nursing board exam leakage scandal when the review center was pointed as the source of the leakage. Now if someone can use the text and refs at the link I'e given this can be expanded well enough to be nominated at WP:DYK. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 November 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.