Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badoo


 * 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   no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Badoo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article whose notability is in question; improperly sourced article lacking in-line citations and whose only "sources" are shaky. Corporation that operates this website is questioned as a data-mining service or large-scale spamming system —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete : I think this qualifies as a speedy delete as an article which threatens it's subject. It clearly makes unsourced statements about the website being a scam and such.  It fails under WP:NPOV.  Also, I see a lot of 2nd person language which seems to suggest original research.  Most of the claims fail WP:Verifiability.  The first two refs do not prove notability and the last ref is a blog.  Why did this even go to AfD?  This should have been a CSD G10.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those seem like arguments for deletion to me. Cliché though this may be: Be Bold and Fix It. It seems to be a site popular enough to warrant its own article and WP:PRESERVE preaches the preservation of information. +Hexagon1 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've clearly judged the article wrong.  I am changing my vote to keep since the subject does have notability and someone fixed the attack.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment certainly not a G10 candidate as there are non-attacking / non-disparaging versions which can be reverted to. Maybe be original research and may be non notable, but certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. The   Seeker 4   Talk  19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article could be improved but a website that is ranked 131 in the world (Alexa rank) surely has a case for inclusion. Lumos3 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a prominent (apparently) website, article significantly different from the revision at nomination. +Hexagon1 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nobody has demonstrated notability. If an Alexa ranking is the only criterion for inclusion, let's hurry up and create articles for all porn sites with high traffic rankings out there.74.62.38.20 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with doing so (as we know Wikipedia is not censored), in fact I'm morbidly curious what the articles discussing them would contain. +Hexagon1 15:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I may be curious myself and I have nothing against that idea either, but my point here is different. Tube8 is ranked 71 on Alexa, way higher than Badoo, but was deleted under CSD A7. So are many others. All we hear about Badoo is their little marketing 'press release' about high Alexa rankings for traffic. OK, we get it: spam, fake profiles and pictures of pretty girls can get you lots of traffic... Cool. Why do we have an article on BadOO and not on BadJojo, SlutLoad or Wank? Would someone who supports keeping the page, please explain?74.62.38.20 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference lies in the notability of the site. The Badoo site has attracted several press articles on it which make it notable. Porn sites seldom attract comment in reliable press sources. When they do maybe they would merit an article. Lumos3 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - appears to have just about enough references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Other than the soft ball press junket piece in the Guardian from 2007? Some PR press releases... The The Daily Telegraph is a dishonorable mention. I hope you reconsider.74.62.38.20 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (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.