Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ELC LTD

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELC LTD

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

Non-notable language school; previously prod'ed under English language center and English language Center TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should've been speedied: an article on XYZ Inc. by User:XYZ is inherently promotional because its purpose is to use Wikipedia to enhance the notoriety of the subject. And there's no ambiguity about it. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELC LTD is a well known company in Ukraine. It was awarded with a national "high label" prize. it's a member of National Quality Association and has a 15 years good reputation history. How can you write that it's "Non-notable language school"? What is "notable" then in your opinion? EF_Education_First? What's the difference then? My opinion is - the company has the right to put information on wikipedia among many other companies in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.8.9 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 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) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The page is promotional in nature, and is effectively unsourced since its two references are to dead links without other detail. The external links are all to sites associated with the company or its member schools. Tone and sourcing could in theory be fixed, but I'm not sure if the schools are notable in themselves. Cnilep (talk) 07:31, 25 October 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.