Talk:Forever (website)

Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination)
I have renominated it for AfD. because of no improvement from last time. SwisterTwister,  K.e.coffman,  DGG , Lemongirl942. Light2021 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I currently work for this company. It's small enough that we don't have a dedicated digital media person. What sort of changes are you looking for? -Fuzzy (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Glen Meakem

 * Note: The was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As there is nothing to write about this one independently. Merging can be good option as Page for founder is already there. Light2021 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with a merge -- HighKing ++ 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge -- one article would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per my rewrite. The merge nominator is incorrect that "there is nothing to write about this one independently". A merge to Glen Meakem would be undue weight. There is sufficient material for a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose You fail to delete an article, you don't immediately try again with a merge which would effectively have the same result. Anyway, ample information in the company article on its own, and ample references for that information.   D r e a m Focus  16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has been rewritten, and wouldn't be improved with a merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge given the AfD clearly stated the concerns and there was sufficient basis to show nothing satisfied out policies; simply because it wasn't deleted is not a defense, exactly how anything here can be reconsidered for deletion and subsequently deleted, the new improvements aren't outweighing the still existing concerns. With a consensus to merge, this can counter any later attempts at advertising. As it is, this subject is mentioned as a basic at the founder's article. This current Forever.com article, as it is, largely outweighs any benefits, because the largest sections it has, are literally their advertised "Products and services" section thus violating WP:NOT, our policy alone. SwisterTwister   talk  18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear concerns? The first nomination read, "There is nothing significant about the organization or website here."  What is "nothing significant" supposed to mean other than "I don't like it"?  The next nomination started, "There are  [sic] no improvement from last AfD."  This is right out of WP:ATA's WP:IMPATIENT, which says, "Remember that there is no deadline."  The nomination goes on to call for a speedy delete without identifying any speedy delete criteria.  The only concerns nominations like this generate are for the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: Plain & simple: There are enough sources and contents in the article to justify a standalone piece. Anup   [Talk]  06:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Per several previous editors, this is an attempt to make a back run around the AfD process. OhNo itsJamie Talk
 * Oppose As end-around to the deletion discussion and as there are WP:RS to support independent notability of this site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: The was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Current Employee willing to answer questions
I currently work for Forever as a developer. While I am not an authoritative source, I figure this at least lets people know that there are real people here building a real product. :) I also let our publicity guy know about the AfD a while back. I think he fixed things up a bit to make it more informative. -Fuzzy (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability
Two AfDs closed as No consensus (not as Keep). It's appropriate to retain the tag until consensus changes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)