Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingo24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FPBot (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 4 April 2009 (ROBOT: Template subst per WP:SUBST). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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 to keep the article.
- Lingo24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company with no claims of notability. db tag was removed by a brand-new editor whose only edits were to edit-war over removing db tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As opposed to those who disruptively kept readding them, rather than prod or AfD. Forward planning failure (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forward planning failure (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock of indef-blocked troll User:RMHED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As opposed to those who disruptively kept readding them, rather than prod or AfD. Forward planning failure (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article provides three none trivial sources(including the Financial Times), this clearly meets WP:CORP's standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WEAK DELETE-Spam, unable to find reference to Winners at the Web(W@W) award outside of something that appears to be a Lingo24 press release. The W@W press release fails to mention Lingo24. Comment-Let's please not use this AfD as a forum to discuss the actions of others. The purpose of this AfD is to rationally discuss the merits of this article. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Financial Time article does however mention it promenantly as does the Scottish Enterprise article. In my opinion, these two sources meet the notability threshold (for some reason I can't access the third source or I would comment on it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--I also am convinced by the three references that the company passes the notability test. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep us.ft.com satisfies WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 6.53 20 March 2009 (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.