Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LingQ

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. MBisanz ^talk 12:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LingQ

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

The business and product do not appear to be notable. A notability template was placed in June 2013, while a page about the product's creator, Steve Kaufmann, was deleted in 2009 after the corresponding notification. Notices have been placed on the Talk pages of the page's creator, as well as the creator of the Kaufmann page, so hopefully they can contribute.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough coverage to justify keeping this; the only good source is Ottawa Citizen and I don't think one good source is enough. Ping me if more good sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. Talk page identifies major COI issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I propose the community to looks through the sources of this old stub: User:Vincent Pace/sandbox/Steve Kaufmann. Though they didn't show the notability of the person, it may be different with the notability of the project - some of them may also be simply used to improve the quality of the article. I will look for further sources that could show what Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires. LingQ is a pioneer in a new branch of software, as the existence of both Open Source and proprietary clones shows. Therefore I would like to Keep the article --eugrus (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My further detailed position is now as following: LingQ is software discussed in reliable reviews, written by independent authors, and discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. Each of these criteria alone is enough under the Wikipedia notability guidelines for software. Here is the list of sources confirming notability as stated hereinbefore:

I am not opposed to the retention of this article on Wikipedia, but I concede that I have been influenced by the elance comment on the Talk page—I therefore cannot help but be wary when I encounter fervent interest, such as that displayed by eugrus (talk), in regard to this article. Other copyeditors will note from the PC Mag article that LingQ is actually a retail product, so the owner of the software stands to financially gain from any kind of publicity, including that which is garnered through Wikipedia. If anyone can address this matter, that would be helpful I think. Furthermore, a Talk item remains outstanding: can you respond to it Eugrus? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to the "fervent interest", my connection with LingQ.com is limited to that of a paying (subscription-) user. In other words, it's the same as the one with Skype or Evernote. I'don't think it makes my associated with these products in a way that would not allow me editing Wikipedia articles about them. On the other hand I share the condemnation of the commission of the original article (no segment of the original edition except the introduction is shared with the current version) and would support the inspection of the articles written by User:EagerToddler39 to find out whether or not it's the first article this user created on commission.
But then I don't see how the "issue" with references pointed out on the talk page is relevant to the discussion on this deletion: you seem to think that every single reference in the article should serve to show its notability. In fact, their role is to confirm statements within the article. The list of sources confirming notability is the one you see above in this discussion. And especially since there is no statement on how many languages Steve Kaufman speaks in the Wikipedia article on LingQ, I don't understand why would you even seek for this number (a number changing every year lately, so that every single indication in press had probably been correct at that time; I think it's 14 now). --eugrus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello eugrus (talk). You do understand that changing the content from the original article is meaningless—the reason why someone like this would pay a copyeditor for a Wikipedia article is not because they couldn't write it themselves, but because they needed someone who could ensure that the article did not get removed? Does this makes sense? Just by having a LingQ Wikipedia page, a person stands to gain from the mere exposure, regardless of what the content is like. And, as a paying customer, would it be fair to presume that you have had contact with Kaufmann, either directly or indirectly? Maybe his son? Also, I do not believe killerstartups.com is a reputable website—one just needs to review the link you posted to see that it is not subject to any set of standards. Anyhow, it would be great to read other perspectives. Thanks again, --Soulparadox (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources in the article for the effect it might have or the extent of widespread adoption , . Consewuently. it remains a clever ideas =that might become notable some day. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 10 November 2014 (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.