Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguix


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Linguix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The software doesn't appear notable under WP:GNG. I believe at most two of the sources provided with the article might meet the needs, and Google yields no independent coverage other than blogs and user-generated content. Largoplazo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence? I've looked at number of your contributions to other deletion discussions, which lead me to think you ought to read WP:!VOTE. The outcomes of deletion discussions are based on points raised and arguments made, not a tally of Keeps versus Deletes, so, if your interest in influencing the outcome of these discussions is genuine, you ought to present the reasoning behind your opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability: The software considered as a top alternative to Grammarly according to Product Hunt; It have got two rewards: premium usability rewards and risign star; Softpedia labs has acknowledged that Linguix's Chrome and Firefox extensions are 100% clean from adware/spyware etc. They are not blogs, for example, this is an independent Spanish speaking online media outlets: https://wwwhatsnew.com/2019/03/11/esta-herramienta-nos-ayudara-a-escribir-mejor-en-ingles-gracias-a-su-inteligencia-artificial/ Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk)
 * That a software maker managed not to built adware and spyware into its product merits special attention? Is every farm found by inspectors not to be shipping lettuce contaminated with E. coli likewise worthy of encyclopedic attention? Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Going through the sources, 11 are self published, primary, or simply statements of the existence of the product. The remaining 5 are questionable, and accordingly it isn't clear that they are all independent enough to get this over the GNG line. I'm also concerned about the influence of undisclosed paid editors on this process. - Bilby (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable web application with no third party sources. Fails WP:GNG. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources appear to be churnalism. Guy (help!) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (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.