Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DatingAdvice.com


 * 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. A number of sources were suggested, but later discussants felt these were primary sources and/or trivial mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

DatingAdvice.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating article for deletion on WP:NOTE, WP:CORPDEPTH and lack of significance grounds. The first source cites an article about an individual who starts  niche websites, and describes DatingAdvice.com (a description of the site is given) as one of his accomplishments. The second source cites and discusses a DatingAdvice.com article, and quotes the editor in chief of said site. The next three sources are cited directly to DatingAdvice.com, and a further one is a biography of an expert working at DatingAdvice. The most verifiable of the sources cites a DatingAdvice examination of other dating sites, but does not comment on the website itself. A citation of ASU leads to an expired scholarship posted by the article subject and a further link to DatingAdvice's website. The Forbes article cited is attributed to the a founder of DatingAdvice, and the article was produced by the Forbes Technology Council, a community of contributors which Forbes notes *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Two further sources cite DatingAdvice.com as being a finalist in a US Dating Awards completion (this link has bee updated) and as a winner of a Digital Brands Award, but no comment is made about the website. Not likely to find many more sources on the website, so I recommend deletion. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC) SamHolt6 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: One source, The Gainesville Sun, is a longstanding newspaper, and the article discusses the significance and achievement of DatingAdvice.com in some detail. The owner gained enough notariety for a newspaper article by creating this site. Another source, Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality, is a published book which cites and discusses research done by this article's subject. These two sources in particular are completely independent and have no special interest in the article's subject. Three of the site's writers (listed in the article) are each notable enough to have their own entries on Wikipedia. A Google search reveals HORDES of other sites (including some high-profile ones) linking to this site. It has certainly gained some significant recognition. I am willing to edit this article as needed to assist in making it comply with Wikipedia's policies, but I actually believe it already does as it currently stands. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 00:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ALSO: I just discovered that the article's subject has been covered in another news article as well as a lengthy blog post. Though these are not referenced in the Wikipedia article itself, they do confer notability and would qualify as independent sources for the subject. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 23:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel this is a digital magazine. None of the sources suggest that it is a notable digital magazine.  Many are trivial in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I do agree that some of the sources may be trivial, though at least three are definitely both reputable and non-trivial. If you believe that some are inappropriate, your (or anyone else's) cleanup efforts would be appreciated. In addition to the two new sources I mentioned above (news article discussing the subject directly and blog post discussing the subject directly) which have not yet been added to the article, here are a few others I have stumbled upon recently which have not been added to the article yet either: newspaper article (this one directly covers the subject and is non-trivial), book (though this one is just an acknowledgement), and news article (this one just has a quote from a writer for DatingAdvice.com, so maybe not usable). Please feel free to improve the article! Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 00:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, coverage that merely claims that the website is lying in an attempt to get press coverage is not sufficient for meeting notability guidelines. Both your "new links" are of that form. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - most of the sources are primary or trivial mentions. The Gainesville Sun coverage is good, but I'd have to see  broader coverage like that to establish notability before changing my vote. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:03, 3 August 2017 (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.