Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinguaTrip


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

LinguaTrip

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bog-standard start-up. Article is indistinguishable from a press release. Calton | Talk 00:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable enough. The only coverage of this company relates to its funding and its participation in a startup accelerator. Newslinger (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Absurd nomination.
 * Bog-standard start-up — It is not entirely clear what you mean by this definition. LinguaTrip is no longer a start-up, it's an independent company.
 * Article is indistinguishable from a press release — It's just a translation of a Russian article. There are no problems with this, so I translated this article into an enwiki. It is unclear what you want.
 * To confirm the company's fame, huge citations in the media, I want to quote these links:, , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Skepsiz (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – At this point. Seems to meet our basic requirements for Notability, as shown here .  However, a rewrite is necessary for the article to meet English Grammar standards. ShoesssS Talk 19:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My native language is Russian, I don't know English well. It would be great if someone from the participants helped to correct the grammatical errors of the translation. Skepsiz (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where? I have already proved the opposite.
 * Now I see the same situation as in Russian Wikipedia, when I was just beginning. No one has an interest in helping to supplement articles, everyone only wants to delete, delete and delete. It is sad. And while this situation continues, Wikipedia will lose, perhaps, talented authors, and only the persistent and callous users which at the moment make up the contingent of Wikipedia will remain. Again I apologize for grammatical errors. Thank you. Skepsiz (talk)


 * Delete No indications of notability and Skepsiz has a very flawed idea of the type of references required to meet the criteria for establishing notability as well as a flawed idea on the role of editors at AfD. Nonetheless, I have looked at every reference provided above and they all fail WP:NCORP. None of the references are "intellectually independent" and all fail for one of the following reasons: extensive reliance on interviews/quotation with company officers or connected sources with no intellectually independent opinions or analysis WP:ORGIND, mentions-in-passing WP:CORPDEPTH, profiles of founders WP:ORGIND and finally inclusion in lists of similar companies WP:CORPDEPTH. There may be a case for an article on Marina Mogilko but I don't see anything that lends itself to meeting the criteria for the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The company has a great interest of various media. Or are you determined to find fault with every little thing?
 * By the way, it looks like you were originally interested in deleting the article. This is evidenced by such a vast argument. You did not accidentally study for a lawyer? It just reminds me of how some very qualified lawyer will justify even a murderer for a huge amount of money. Lol. Skepsiz (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2018 (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.