Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Learn

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. ✗plicit 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Learn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Moved by conflicted editor from AFC to main space, fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and California. Kpg jhp jm 09:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and clearly blatant advertising . Kpg jhp jm 09:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure adware, zero evidence of notability of any flavour; should never have been moved into the main space. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: possibly notable for its DOMA and DORA diagnostic tests used in many school system. Searching on "Let's Go Learn" + software, I came up with some possible refs that bear further examination [1][2]. I'm traveling with sketchy internet access and have not had time to search for "Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment" and "Diagnostic Online Math Assessment". Can someone else here take a look at those? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about all I can find in scholarly journals [3]. Thesis? Delete for lack of sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Online reading assessments" seem to be a thing, but not this particular product's offering. I find many hits on the term, hardly anything for this product. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a BEFORE, found no SIGCOV. Also feels self promotional in style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I looked earlier, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per poor sourcing and not meeting WP:GNG BoraVoro (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2023 (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.