Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyShiksha

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 (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyShiksha

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm also wondering whether the author wants this to be deleted, because he keeps adding promotional content and the advert tag. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it extremely hard to find secondary sources for this article. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are extremely scarce. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in depth coverage whatsoever, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All cited sources are to the subject website itself or to the company said to have designed it, clearly not independent sources. I did a web search and could find no significant independent coverage. For some topics one might expect off-line sources, but for an article about a web site, the absence of online coverage pretty much says not-notable to me. Of course if someone presents reliable independent sources my view would change, but I honestly don't expect that. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedied this were it not for the AFD. I've speedied the article for HawksCode, the parent company written by the same obvious COI editot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Should've been speedied -KH-1 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I requested for speedy A7 at very early stage but not getting how it's still here. GSS (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing Notable found in news or references to be here. Zedopuppy (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2016 (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.