Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanishpod101


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanishpod101

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't pass WP:CORP. I couldn't find any sources about this online, and the only sources in the article are primary. The parent company, Innovative Language Learning, also does not seem notable. (However, one of their products, Japanesepod101, does pass WP:CORP.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Innovative Language Learning. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I could find a couple reviews - it seems this software is widely used. I don't know why it would need to pass WP:CORP either because it is software. is one example. It's a bit on the edge but I would give it the benefit of the doubt.  Vaca  tion  9  12:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about WP:CORP, but probably saying WP:GNG would have been better. About the link you posted - it looks very much like a self-published source, and we can't use those to count toward notability. Do you have a link for the other review you found? Maybe that one will fare better with relation to WP:RS. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As Stradivarius said, that source I linked isn't really a reliable source. The other one wasn't reliable either. Don't know what I was thinking at the time, but I'm changing my vote to delete. Fails WP:GNG. Vaca  tion  9  22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This company and its roost of softwares are not notable, with the sole exception of the Japanesepod101, there are few reviews from few unreliable or self-published sources, only mentions or whatsoever. Eduemo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't meet the notability guidelines. More coverage is needed to satisfy this. — Ṙ  ΛΧΣ  21  02:20, 31 January 2013 (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.