Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult FriendFinder
- 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adult FriendFinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Stay with me on this one, the reason I nominated this is a bit different then most. For one, this article does read like an advertisement, as it has since it was tagged. It also fails WP:ORG. Also, look at its talk page, this article was a scam. I believe this article is not salvageable. The source that describes the male to female ratio does not make the article notable either. I say delete this article. Undeath (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of coverage by media Corpx (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite from sources. Not sure if there's a reliable source that it's the biggest dating site, but it certainly claims to be and has received commensurate coverage in media. The solution to bad information is to remove or source it. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:V and WP:N, although I think it's unfortunate that we have to have an article on this and cannot have one on a popular social networking website hi5.ro with over 100K users...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey, you voted delete on that one! It seems that could be a language/sourcing issue, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while the current article has multiple problems and a notable lack of editors willing to improve it, the subject is, for better or worse, notable. The company is real and has attracted media coverage, so a verifiable article could be produced. I'd suggest reducing what we have to a stub and making sure that the only properly sourced material is added back. Gwernol 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know how it is. You put up a page, and lots of people see it and express interest, but you can never get them to follow through. Um, what were we talking about again? --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable; I've heard about it many times and Google reveals over a million results. — Wenli (reply here) 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google turns up lots, but to judge from the first 20-odd hits nothing reliable: almost none are independent of the subject, even those in newspapers, reliable at first sight, are just a press release from Penthouse. The odd one or two are blogs. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Try using Google News Archive instead of just Google. You also have to vary the orthography a bit on this one. --Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable; and judging by simple observation, notably open to criticism.
- Comment I am considering reverting this page, as it has a long history of being mysteriously and consistently edited in order to minimise or remove criticisms, however justified their inclusion. Now I see a rather poor version of the article listed for deletion. Is someone gaming the system? Centrepull (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (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.