Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I am learning


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Weak sourcing. I imagine the sourcing is hard because the name is such a common phrase however I could only find a bare mention in a third party source here. Software sounds relatively legitimate but it doesn't seem to rise to the level or importance or significant as far as learning software goes. I don't see anything particularly unique about this software. v/r - TP 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with TP that the software seems legitimate, but there is no evidence of notability. I could not find an independent reliable source for I am learning. NJ Wine (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While it sounds like a great project, it doesn't seem to have the secondary coverage to demonstrate it passes the criteria for inclusion.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

*Delete Not Notable.-- Deathlaser : Chat  17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that it's not notable doesn't imply anything. It's more notable than MyMaths, in my sight. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if articles are about topics that are not notable, then they get deleted. On the other hand, saying "Not Notable" does not carry any weight in a deletion discussion, if the !voter does not explain why they think something is not notable. Regarding MyMaths, read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete ‣ I'd be willing to reconsider if more sources are presented, given the difficulty in searching for the article name noted by the nominator, but the fact that only one hit is returned between Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar for the domain name "www.iamlearning.co.uk" indicates to me that this topic doesn't currently satisfy WP:GNG. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. I didn't get reliable source thus cannot find it enough notable. Also the ranking is way to low to establish it → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions* 01:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete - From my searches, results for sources are scant thus far. However, here's one I found that offers significant coverage about the topic :
 * If another reliable source comprised of significant coverage about the topic is found, this !vote can change.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not prove notability, not enough reliable sources to prove notability and 1.7 mill place in Alexa ranking is way to low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlaser (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. It doesn't seem notable enough, and the sourcing is not great. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:01, 29 May 2012 (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.