Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student city

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. Secret account 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student city

Student city (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was deleted by speedy, I believe by A7. It was recreated, and speedy shortly thereafter and through new page patrol speedy was asked for again, but the tag was removed (perhaps rightfully). I prodded the article, but the article's creator removed the deletion notice and has since added material to the article. Even with the additional material, I don't believe this article meets our notability requirements as I could not find any reliable, independent, verifiable resources to add to the article when I prodded it. If anyone can find anything to substantiate this article's subject beyond it merely existing, I'll gladly remove this nom. Note however, I'm bringing it here for wider community consensus, my opinion is to Delete. Please additionally note the apparent WP:COI concerns, as well as WP:SPA and WP:SPAM. Keeper | 76 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep The content in this article is verifiable through Babson College's independent study where they studied the genesis of Student City and created a case which business students enrolled in Babson College's Entrepreneurial Studies have referred to. If required, a copy of the case study can be emailed to anyone who'd like to go through it. Also, note that the COI, SPA and SPAM concerns have been addressed by tweaking the content of the entry and deleting unnecessary verbiage. I request the community to advice me on how I can edit this article to meet the editorial standards of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfromhalo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment PLEASE enter the following search terms in Google "arthur entrepreneurship blank studentcity.com". The first result is the pdf of the Case study that Babson College had done with studentcity.com. contact details are in the document if you'd like to verify the information further. Once again, please let me know what I require to incorporate into the entry based on what content's in the case study. the case study is 19 pages long. Thanks!
  • Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment If notability was the issue, then what's stopping the community from flagging sites like orbitz, expedia etc. the wiki guidelines do request that one uses good judgment and common sense before deletion. I think if this article is a notable story of successful entrepreneurship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.51.243 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then find some sources that say exactly that. If it was a notable subject, surely someone, somewhere has written about it? Babson College is not independent of the article's subject. Keeper | 76 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment 1. Your first link (the pdf) proves that Studentcity.com exists, which is not up for debate here. The textbook, however, is about entrepreneurship and is not about them other than as an example buried 15 pages in. (passing mention =/= notability).
  • 2. Your second link (barnes and noble) proves that the book that mentions them in passing exists and is available for sale.
  • 3. Your third link is to a Babson college case study and proves my previous post. Reading paragraph #2 from the case study: "Another of our case proposal guidelines stipulates that cases should be based on field research. This was no problem with StudentCity.com because the entrepreneur in the case, Mario Ricciardelli, had been an undergraduate student of mine. His first venture, in 1987, had been to start a travel agency on the Babson campus, which he continued with after graduation. My links with him have become closer over the years, as both a business mentor and family friend.". (bolded emphasis mine). Hardly independent of the subject, wouldn't you agree? Keeper | 76 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Good point on #3, I'm trying to give you sources in good faith and appreciate the feedback. But, Isn't link #1 reasonable enough for notability purposes. See pages 7 & 8 of the pdf, it speaks about commitment and dedication to an entrepreneurial venture despite having shortcomings and about the two entrepreneurs persisting with Studentcity till it succeeded and became big enough to be bought by First choice Student Travel. To me, if that's included in the curriculum for business school students, isn't that suitable proof of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.218.194 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Comment I will first say that I greatly appreciate your civility and willingness to work on this article. I will also say that we will likely have to agree to disagree, but I'll give it one more try. The first reference (the textbook's brief mention) does not establish notability, it establishes existence. From the pertinent notability guideline as the Primary Criterion: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. (emphasis mine). Being used as an example in a (rather obscure) textbook is considered, in my opinion, trivial. Without additional sourcing, I just don't see it being much more than advertising for the company and certainly not encyclopædic. Keeper | 76 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I'm no stickler for conventional sources, but I'm not convinced of notability. DGG (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, COI, spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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.