Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Language 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Language Learning

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While one of their podcasts, Japanesepod101, is notable, this company doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. The only discussion I can see in the article's references is of Japanesepod101, not about the company itself, and the company doesn't automatically inherit notability from the product. I didn't find any other sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanishpod101. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company is not notable enough to have its own article within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with you or anything, but you should probably have a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE, as arguments like the above aren't usually given too much weight by the closing admin. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lemme rephrase it, I put the right argumentation under Englishpod101 (or whatsoever) - 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. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The websites this company controls may be notable by themselves, but notability is not inherited upwards or downwards. Only musical artists receive notability because of their singles or albums, as well as several other few things. The rest, and specially organizations, have to meet, by themselves, the notability guideline by being covered on a non-trivial fashion by third party independent sources, and I am not seeing that to be successfully met in this case. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Creating a notable product is not necessarily a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.