Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duolingo

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duolingo

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

advertising The Banner talk 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may need to be rewritten, but the company definitely meets GNG. [1][2][3][4][5] Many of the 50+ references on the article page also show that the article meets GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not questioning the notability. I nominate the article because it is one big piece of advertisement. The Banner talk 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question Duolingo is notable, Natag's links establish that. TvojaStara (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a subject of importance, not judging the current content of the article. TudorTulok (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is easily verified---the software is widely reported on. If the article is poor, fix it, don't waste everyone's time with spurious AdDs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And usually, nobody even tries to fix it, leaving an advertisement an advertisement. And thereby undermining the Wikipedia policy that that advertising is not allowed. The Banner talk 14:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not really advertisement. I would call it a fan perspective. Duolingo is certainly notable, but in a large part due to their PR prowess and not due to "deep historic significance". IMO they do not "deserve" such detailed article. Yet there is a lot of people willing to add to the article in current state and update it. I added a fixup AfD rewrite template to the article, so this discussion is not forgotten after it is closed.TvojaStara (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Banner: There are nearly five million articles on WP, and all the volunteer editors have different priorities as to which articles they want to fix. This one's actually been on my mind (because I use the software regularly and there are lots of sources out there to work from), but I likely won't get to it in the near future. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping you from taking a crack at it. Looking at your edit count, you obviously know how to do it, so why are you wasting time with this AfD instead of fixing it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not wasting your time, in fact you are wasting my time. You stated that the article have to be fixed by normal editing but nothing is happening. And because I know that nothing will be happening, I suggest to apply WP:TNT to solve the advertising. The Banner talk 10:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - What an astoundingly clueless response. Plaese, don't waste your or anyone else's time here anymore. Someone with your edit history has no excuse for pulling this garbage. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL, ditto... The Banner talk 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A source review demonstrates that the topic passes WP:WEBCRIT. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, as per WP:ATD. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As Curly Turkey suggests, the article can always be fixed if it sounds overly promotional, but Duolingo itself has a very strong notability. DrCooldudeAlt (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It's clearly notable and the person suggesting deletion agrees. If the problem is the tone, then just change the thone. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 30 March 2015 (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.