Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScholarShop

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) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarShop

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, due to the lack of any in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I vouch to remove this page as well. Tritario (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of hits on Google News, but they're all subscription. Maybe someone can comment on whether they're relevant? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked at NewsBank. 287 hits. The problem is, most of them are in error (scholarship ~= scholarshop), or they are local St. Louis sources, or trivial mentions. It would be a lot of time and work to go through each one and try to make a case for Keep. My rough estimate is there is not enough sourcing. I did find in-depth sources that talk about the ScholarShop at length as the main focus of the article, but all from the same local paper:

"Cool factor of resale shopping benefits ScholarShop - Everyone loves a bargain, and now they're not afraid to admit it", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"Scholarship fund opens temporary outlet for sale", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"ScholarShop's success leads to opening of a second store", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"SCHOLARSHOP USES UPSCALE CASTOFFS TO PROVIDE LOANS FOR FUTURE SCHOLARS", St. Louis Post-Dispatch

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2013 (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.