Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of online dating websites

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online dating websites

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

This appears to me to be a very clear example of what Wikipedia is not: a directory. It looks like a great deal of love and effort has been expended on the article, it looks both useful and interesting, but that does not mean it has a place here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stand alone lists are allowed on Wikipedia. This article does not meet any of the criteria under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is not duplicated by another article (list of online dating websites redirects to the article). Gobonobo ^T ^C 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gobonobo. I don't think this would have been nominated if it were titled list of online dating websites, which what it essentially is; any annotated list is basically a "comparison" so I don't see that as useful to include in the title. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes, it would have been, It is not a simple list. It is the content that caused me to nominate it, not the title. The comparative elements make this a directory very clearly for me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you've misunderstood WP:NOTDIR. You're far from the first person to do that. See also Category:Comparisons for a sense of how accepted this kind of article is. And at best you'd have reason to edit it to change it to whatever is proper for a index of our articles about online dating websites to fix the NOTDIR "violations," not reason to delete it outright. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It meets guidelines for lists; I'm not seeing how it fits with WP:NOTDIR. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 17 February 2012 (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.