Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popup Chinese (2nd nomination)

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. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popup Chinese[edit]

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

First result was a keep, though I note that the sources added don't seem to be particularly notable, nor do they provide significant depth. One is a Google search that shows three passing mentions on Forbes' Chinese site; another doesn't mention it at all, and another is just a link to it's iTunes listing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There should be an indication that there's significant coverage in reliable sources, but it does not since the sources are not particularly notable. Some of the sources are not particularly independent either. --Cold Season (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails corporate notability, is largely self-promotional while some of the sources are either self-published or weak on reliability. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've had a look for additional sources and couldn't find any. The sources given in the article are either self published blogs, or commercially attached to Popup Chinese thus lacking independence, or both so failing WP:RS. Ergo it does not pass corporate notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've tidied up the inappropriate links and dubious claims that were based on them. What's left is a collection of blog posts as references, nothing that looks like a reliable source, not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 28 March 2014 (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.