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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Essays[edit]

UK Essays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non-notable, very poorly-written, much reliance on primary sources jftsang 17:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am finding some coverage for this company: BBC, Guardian (sort of in passing, almost a trivial source). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After some searching I found that there was a brief flurry of coverage where the company was briefly mentioned along with two other companies as an example of their type, but the coverage was not entirely in depth. Aside from the two above, the only other two that are decent are the ones on the article, from the Sunday Times (paywalled) and the Telegraph. This really doesn't seem like enough to truly give a good depth of coverage, although I will say that the Guardian article was from 2006, the BBC from 2008, and the other two from 2010. The other mentioned coverage is from 2014, but the coverage is sort of in passing since the main focus was on covering students purchasing essays and raising awareness that they shouldn't do it. It's close, but I don't know that this is really heavy enough to warrant an article, as companies are expected to have more coverage than the average GNG article. If anyone can find anything better, I'm open to persuasion since this is fairly borderline for me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the best I also found was only this and this, I found nothing else and there's hardly much here to suggest better notability and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 14 December 2015 (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.