Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Match Maker


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Adult Match Maker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. I haven't found any non-trivial coverage of the website using Google search apart from self-published info and affiliate sites. It might meet the second criterion - winning a well-known independent award, but I don't know how well-known the 3 awards listed are. I think the award for "most supportive sponsor" probably fails the "independent" criterion. The third award might be the best-known one, having a Wikipedia entry, but I can't find any mention of Adult Match Maker on their site. Additionally, the majority of the current article is listing various features of the website, which have no place on Wikipedia. Daß Wölf (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant and well-known Australian business which should meet GNG with little trouble. Unfortunately their SEO has done an amazing job of bastardising their Google results for things which aren't their website, which is making actual coverage of them surprisingly hard to find for a company of their size. If I had access to a decent newspaper database this would get a lot easier. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Drover&#39;s Wife, I googled dozens of sources that mention the site, some linked below, and hope you'll reconsider based on whether the subject does meet GNG, rather than whether it should meet GNG. Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be shocked if it didn't for a business of their size and public profile, but I'm also not terribly sympathetic towards them for polluting their Google results with SEO so badly that it's difficult to find them. As I said, this would be something made a lot easier if I had access to a news database with decent business coverage. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as extremely notable. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decisions are supposed to be based on the strength of arguments and evidence; that's just a baseless assertion. Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Good point I suppose, Anyway changed to delete as 1. I must've been on another planet!, and 2. there's actually no evidence of notability at all ... Just seems to be different sites (ie .co.uk, .au etc etc) and that's it. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 18:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep Delete - I found 16 newspaper articles on NewsBank that mention this website, most in the context of various cases of fraud by members against other members. None of the articles discuss the website in depth, but by shear number of articles, this subject would seem to squeak by on notability. - MrX 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MrX, part of the reason behind GNG wanting significant coverage, rather than trivial mentions, is to ensure there are sources on which to base an article. In this case, there are not. As WP:WEB says, "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves." Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like the above "keep" voters, I found the subject has attracted considerable notice, but no independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Unlike them, I think this fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I found many published articles that mention the site in passing, often listed in the same same sentence with competing sites, but none with any depth. Just four mentioned/described the website in more than a single sentence, and even then they had little information. Even combining sources, there's not adequate coverage to provide expected rudimentary information about the subject. Below are examples, with quotes. I excluded some advice columns/blogs in newspapers, which are borderline reliable sources depending on how they're used, but coverage in those was similar, or entirely anecdotal. I also omitted the many duplicates of these articles published in sibling Fairfax Media & News Limited newspapers, sometimes with different titles but identical content. I'm sure I've overlooked some sources, and if any provide significant coverage, please cite them so I can reconsider this issue.
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
 * (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).


 * One cautionary note about the coverage is that Fairfax Media, which owns the publishers of most of the above material, also owns Australia's (supposedly) leading online dating site, RSVP, and it raises the issue of "independence" of the coverage. RSVP provides the only market share estimates about AdultMatchMaker, in their annual "Date of the Nation" reports, which forms the basis for most of the Wikipedia article; it is cited as a reliable source because it was described in a Fairfax Media newspaper.


 * --Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – I agree with Agyle here. I think this fails the notability test. United States Man (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.