Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmoLatina


 * 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 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

AmoLatina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

essentially promotional article. no reliable sources for notability- just PR sites.  DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Certainly seems promotional. I think partly that is because of the image. What are Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites? Does this article meet those guidelines? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:Wow a mail order bride website-I'm going to say delete on it being promotional, this seems like the type of thing that gets in your spam box. Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I give a recommendation when I cannot view the references because they are blocked by my computer's filter? Similar to Wgolf, I lean to delete although the plethora of recommendations suggests that notability could exist.--Rpclod (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of scared to click on the link as it seems like a spam type site. Wgolf (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the three sources which initially appear to be reliable, two reproduce the same blog entry & the third is behind a paywall. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment-you know looking at the picture of that site I just feel like I need to put some sort of late night joke lol. Like hey look at all the fake pictures of women there that look so beautiful. And in all honesty-not sure anyone is actually going to be looking up info about a site like this on Wikipedia. If it is even a place someone would want to go to. Wgolf (talk) 15:27, 31 August 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.