Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinesePod


 * 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 keep. Notability and verifiability are ensured. Reasons given for deletion are the tone being to promotional, and the original purpose of creation of the article being to promote the subject. Neither are grounds for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ChinesePod

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Chinesepod is commercial site. Visitors need to pay to get most of services. Some famous VC and investment companies have plan to invest this company. When you search 'learn Chinese' in google, you can see a lot of AD of Chinesepod. Chinesepod is a language training company in Shanghai. [Subscription Price] The article was written only for advertising and SEO (Search Engine Optimize). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesjaneiss (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; the article clearly states notability and verifiability. The fact that it's commercial is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - I cannot agree with you. Chinesepod is a business service, not a academic site. Any commercial sites all offer some free trial contents. Visitors need to pay to get most of services. [Subscription Price]. For 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post', in China, if you hope to promote your business, you can bribe a newspaper reporter easily. Generally after a reporter gets $100-200, he will report your business. If you hope to do more promotion, you also need to bribe editors and related people. So 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post'. For 'ranked highly by Yahoo', SEO or another online promotion business service can help. For 'has in excess of 10,000 downloads a day', Which authority or neutral statistical agencies can give out the data? In China, there is no such body. I guess most of the description are from the operators for the promotion. For 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China', in my opinion, it is not convincing. In China, the most popular podcast services are related to music. It is the same as in the other countries. Moreover, China's lack of copyright protection, and free music podcast is of course the most popular. BTW, any Chinese people need to learn Chinese through downloading podcast? If only foreign people in China use it, how we can say 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China'. So the article is written only for Advertising and SEO. Yesjaneiss  —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That entire paragraph is irrelevant. The subject is notable and verifiable.  The nature of the subject doesn't matter in the least.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Any commercial sites should not be included in wiki for promotion. At least, all of links to the commercial site Chinesepod.com and Praxis Languages Ltd should be removed. The article is very clear to introduce commercial services and product features including Presenters and related company site. The article is also clear to encourage people to order or subscribe their services --Operacenter (talk) 16:53, 12 April 008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't include commercial sites for promotion. It includes them because they are of note and verifiable sources exist regarding them.  Would you suggest we delete Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco, and all of the other hundreds of elements of the businesses category? Celarnor Talk to me  21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco are well-known public companies. Promotion and traffic from Wiki is not important for the 3 companies. But Chinesepod is only small website and private company. Wiki traffic and pagerank is important for Chinesepod. How can you make sure the article was not written by Chinesepod? So I think at least the external links should be removed. --Operacenter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Subject is clearly notable.  If it reads as an advertisement, that can be fixed by methods other than deletion.  Please review deletion guidelines.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While there are a few bits that could be reworded, most of this page is pretty NPOV already, and doesn't read like an advertisement. As an encyclopedia, we are SUPPOSED to have articles on notable topics, which includes any and all notable businesses.  If you have a problem with the way the article is written, edit it to sound better.  But there's no reason to delete this.--Aervanath (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was only thinking that it's a bit strange that an editor with less than 10 edits has entered AfD... If it's legit, then sorry for the intrusion, but if it's not just coincidence....Undeath (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, six edits, all having to do with this AfD. Single-purpose account?--Aervanath (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that isnt illegal, is it? Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not illegal. But it gives the impression of a) sockpuppetry or b) conflict of interest, or c) both.  I don't know about you, but I highly doubt there are many editors whose very first edit is proposing an AfD.  I think my first edit was reverting vandalism to the Doughnut article.  It took me a while before I found out about AfD.  But then, maybe I'm just slow. :) --Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This conversation might help to explain how a new editor nominated an article for WP:AFD with their first edit - I think it highly probable that Yesjaneiss and Yesjaneis are one and the same person & forgot how they had spelled their username. Still somewhat of an WP:SPA but not quite as odd as it looks on the surface. nancy (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible, but the other account also has only 6 edits. Still looking like a single-purpose account, or that both of them are sockpuppets for someone else.--Aervanath (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is well-referenced, appears quite notable. If we couldn't have commercial sites, we couldn't even have an article on Google.  Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is not without its problems but none of them are reasons to delete. It is a perfectly adequately referenced article about a notable website. nancy  (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's good to have info on Chinesepod. I just came here because I was looking for info on the hosts. You can't remove something because it's commercial, almost everything on Wikipedia are commercial enterprises (Books, Movies, Companies of every kind, pretty much every organization if it's not a non-profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.25.199 (talk • contribs) — 74.66.25.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It's a fairly popular site and I've seen it around a few times. It shouldn't be too difficult to find even more references in addition to the ones that are already there. Gary King ( talk )  20:10, 19 April 2008 (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.