Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Blind Date (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to OKCupid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Crazy Blind Date
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tenuous notability at best. Most references are opinion pieces, cursory reviews or public relations-fueled pieces. The website is written about briefly in the book Dataclysm (where the content on it is self-published), where it is noted that it was only online for a couple of months in 2010 before being shut down again. Together with the terrible sources and the unencyclopedic tone, the subject arguably falls a bit foul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is any place to discuss this website, it is in the history section of OKCupid, which this platform was later incorporated into. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to OKCupid; the nom's arguments are persuasive.   Ravenswing     11:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "This latest in online match-and-meet sites boasts almost instantaneous results. ... The dates require little commitment; they top out at 30 minutes. ... Log in and you're quickly given a choice of date, either solo or double (you can choose both), and day, as early as today if you want. You also choose your city, time of date, neighborhood, form of notification (text or e-mail), type of venue (bar or coffeehouse) and personal preference (men or women)."   The article notes: "Unlike such sites as Match.com and JDate.com, there's no browsing through pictures or looking for a partner with similar tastes. But that raises a question: Is an insta-date a quality experience? Can it spawn insta-love? We tagged along on some Crazy Blind Dates over the past few weeks." </li> <li> The article notes: "Called Crazy Blind Date, the recently launched Web site eliminates online profiles and sets up users on blind dates, sometimes in as quickly as a few hours. ... He launched the free site last November, and it now has 10,000 members, who he said have gone on 90,000 blind dates. ... Crazy Blind Date, on the other hand, requires no such sifting through profiles and messaging back and forth. This means users have little time to build up unreasonable expectations that may be dashed to pieces when reality bites." </li> <li> The article notes: "Kevin Hjelden, a programmer who goes by the nom de web FryGuy and blogs on a site called Burnt Popcorn, has written a program that turns the digitally scrambled headshots of Crazy Blind Date users back into recognizable portraits. ... Although "Blind" is right there in its name, it's not clear how central that aspect might be to the user experience. The primary purpose of the app, which some 130,000 people have downloaded so far, is to get people to spend less time snooping each other's profiles and more time actually going on low-investment first dates. Knowing what the person you're meeting looks like wouldn't necessarily be an obstacle to that." </li> <li> The article notes: "In truth, the most radical part of Crazy Blind Date (whose name and basic concept OK Cupid toyed with in an earlier form more than five years ago) may be the way users are asked to express their satisfaction or lack thereof. After a date's conclusion, the participants are invited to rate each other by purchasing "kudos." Spending a few dollars implies that a date was enjoyable, or at least that one's partner might be a good catch for someone else; spending nothing says you wouldn't want to be set up with someone like that again." </li> <li> The article notes: "That dating model kinda petered out, perhaps because there weren’t enough users signed up for such craaaazy blind dates. But according to Jeff Bercovici of Forbes, the co-founder of OKCupid is ready to roll again with an updated Crazy Blind Date app." </li> <li>Gerstein, Julie (2013-01-15). "Would You Let OKCupid Set You Up On A Blind Date?". The Frisky. Retrieved 2022-01-31. The article notes: "If all this is giving you the creeps, well, you’re not alone. The idea of meeting up with a total stranger with so little information (and none of the personal verification a close friend or colleague might provide in a “real world” blind date scenario) sounds incredibly dangerous. And if not dangerous, well, then, sort of a waste of time. As any woman who’s spent any time on the site can attest, women get bombarded with messages from completely inappropriate suitors all the time. Which is to say, most women have very little faith in OKCupid’s powers of accuracy. Plus, you don’t even have to have an OKCupid profile to use the service — which means there’s even less vetting than normal." </li> <li> The review notes: "And while a dating profile won't alert you to all of a person's potential issues, it can raise some red flags that will help you avoid a real creep. Going on a Crazy Blind Date offers none of that." </li> <li> The article notes: "Once the app has found a compatible date, it will send a confirmation to both parties. Here's the catch: the app scrambles up users' photos, so you won't get a good look at the person with whom you're meeting – and they won't get a good look at you. One hour before the scheduled date, Crazy Blind Date will open up an anonymous IM window so you can easily find your date." </li> <li> The article notes: "Crazy Blind Date is not a new idea for Mr. Yagan. Back in 2007, he worked on an earlier version of the service that was Web- and text-based. It folded after failing to gain traction. " </li> <li> The article notes: "There are two problems here. First, if the date went well and you want to go on another one, it seems like you'd want to rate your date poorly so that they don't end up on other dates. Yes, it's dishonest, but all's fair in love and war. Second, kudos cost money. In other words, you have to pay to give your date a good review — so they can go on more dates with other people!" </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "It’s a nice idea in theory, but when OkCupid introduced a similar blind dating service in 2007, it was a complete bomb. People weren’t all that comfortable meeting a complete stranger from the Internet with only a name, age, and scrambled photograph to go on." </li> <li> The article notes: "All you can see about the other person is one sliced up photo of them, and your OK Cupid match percentage. Hence, “Blind Date”. Unfortunately, what adds the “Crazy” is the fact that the match percentage is a somewhat blunt tool, and you know *literally nothing else* about the other person. For an example of how wrong that can go, here’s an example of conversation between two people who are (in theory) 92 per cent matches:" </li> <li> The article quotes from three experts: Sam Ewen (CEO of Interference), Gary Kremen (founder of Match.com), and Theresia Gouw Ranzetta (general partner at Accel Partners). The quote from Gary Kremen says: "A dating site can succeed only if it attracts a lot of women, and that's the problem with CrazyBlindDate. For any dating site, women, not men, are the customers. Women don't want a crazy blind date; they want safety and security, and they don't want to feel embarrassed. I would take the money they're spending on PR and put it toward affiliate marketing to women. Yagan and Coyne are clearly smart guys: They should start thinking about how to lower the cost of customer acquisition and build a differentiated audience." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crazy Blind Date to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Notability is not temporary, and there is sustained coverage about the subject in the months after it was established and reestablished which means that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The subject received international coverage in the New Statesman (link). Numerous journalists tried the Crazy Blind Date app and shared their thoughts about it in their reviews. Some of the journalists' thoughts were very negative. The considerable analysis and coverage is enough to support to a standalone article about the subject. It would be undue weight to merge this material to OkCupid. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/Crazy Blind Date participants: and . Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Barely any of these sources approach serious, reliable content. Most are either conversational-style opinion pieces, literal dating reviews, or self-evident re-prints of press release materials (e.g. here, or see anything that had the word "launches" in the headline - dead give away). Not a single one of these pieces discusses the subject from a serious, analytical news perspective, so they are the weakest of the weak in terms of secondary sourcing, and quite a few are at least partially based on an interview, so primary. At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources. The Inc article, a reprint of a Bloomberg Businessweek piece, is the closest to a serious, secondary business piece on the subject, so I make that a count of precisely one halfway decent source. I agree that it should redirect to OKCupid (as per the note by Ravenswing), as the service was launched by and was always a part of OKCupid and so can quite duly sit within an article on that company (where it already is). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources." – I do not agree with this assessment. Aside from The Frisky (which I am unfamiliar with), all of these sources are reliable sources. "Conversational-style opinion pieces" of journalists' reviews of Crazy Blind Date can be used to establish notability under Notability (organizations and companies). I maintain that there is enough material and coverage to support standalone notability and a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but looking at the Notability (organizations and companies) guideline in detail, it also specifically notes how such material "must be handled with great care and diligence" as "many reviews are not independent" and that tech-related reviews are typically "more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel", in line with precisely what I am seeing here with some of the pieces, and certainly examples such as the part-sales pitch, part-interview PCmag article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge and redirect any reliably-sourced content to OkCupid. It seems like most of the sources provided above relate to OkCupid's acquisition of and subsequent activities as the parent of Crazy Blind Date, so I don't think there is standalone notability to warrant an article. However, there is enough to add to the single sentence about it presented at the target article. Granted, some of the sources aren't the greatest, but selective use of what is presumably reliable without resorting to refbombing looks doable. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 18:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per the evidence from Cunard. I understand users on Wikipedia have been skeptical about certain reputable publications having their credibility hijacked by PR conflicts of interest, but can someone tell me what proportion of the sources were PR? The Forbes sources, for example are editorial and written by staff, so WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR definitely does not apply. Also, <strong style="color:blue">Kinu is kind of wrong in stating the acquisition and its related activities are most of the topic's coverage. There's the reviews Cunard provided plus a Forbes piece of the vision of the site from the individual behind it (and no, it's not an WP:INTERVIEW just because it uses interview quotes, it's a fully written piece with interview quotes here and there) 👨x🐱 ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% disagree about the Forbes pieces - on is a piece that is clearly based almost solely on an interview with the founder, and the other is an editorial opinion piece referencing that same interview, using the very words "in my interview..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. A piece written by an independent author, with his own prose of the site, being "based" on an interview (by the fact that it incorporates interview info even if it's paraphrasing or the quotes are interspersed) is not the same thing as a source where the transcript of the interview is the entire page (meaning with no written content from another author), which WP:INTERVIEW prohibits. This part of the essay makes that clear: "At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts." 👨x🐱 ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I minced my words too much, but that entire article is quite clearly the bare minimum paraphrasing of the input from the subject and extremely primary in nature - there is barely a shred of any secondary analysis at work. Judging by the overall tone of the piece, I would not be surprised if it was paid. But no matter, we clearly just have different editorial standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Cunard. ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to OKCupid, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.