Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flirtomatic


 * 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. W.marsh 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Flirtomatic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn website Mzlc 09:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. You have given linking to an internet search. You can see that it is well known enough in that respect. Certain claims to notability made within the article are in need of citations. It does not follow that the article therefore qualifies for deletion. I declare that I have been involved in editing this article, but am not the originator, and have no connection whatsoever to Flirtomatic the company. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I initially tagged this for speedy, but the originator took the time and trouble to read our policies and was able to persuade me (see article talk page, mostly) that the article passes our criteria not just to avoid speedy deletion, but just about to pass AfD. Very prepared (!) to defer to a good argument for deletion, but currently I'm for keeping. --Dweller 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I appreciate the authors' contention that this article meets WP:WEB, but fail to see how we can write a verifiable neutral point of view article about a topic with no coverage in secondary sources.  We can't, and are left with an article that is uncited promotional material and/or original research by editors with an obvious conflict of interest.    I think in this case there is an inconsistency between the aforementioned principles of WP:V+WP:NPOV+WP:OR+WP:COI and WP:WEB, and the first four principles should trump.  Of course, if this has been the subject of nontrivial articles in reliable sources, then by all means keep, but I don't see those citations in the article.  - 71.232.29.141 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep 265 thousand registered users is enough, and the partnership they claim with the News of the World is V--to the extent anything connected with that paper is V. DGG 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until sources provided. Unfortunately a claim to notability that isn't backed up with reliable sources isn't a claim at all on wikipedia. As long as they can provide information which meets the criteria in WP:WEB thats fine, but until its provided it shouldn't exist. Google hits and alexa traffic ranks are no longer sufficient to meet the requirements of notability, they can be used as an indicator that something might not be reliable and it requires investigation, but thats the extent of their usefulness. A user count, sourced or not, also doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Multiple non-trivial coverage by sources independent of the subject (and the coverage has to be from a reliable source) is required. Right now I'm not seeing that. The sun article (if thats what you'd call it) appears to be only a brief description of the sites content. So some third party reliable coverage needs to be shown.--Crossmr 20:41, 20 February 2007 (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.