Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mate1.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. NW ( Talk ) 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mate1.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A few passing mentions; but no significant coverage is revealing itself to me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete! I added a few articles at the top of external links. What kind of coverage would validate this article? IanTemple  2:31, 7 February 2010
 * The above comment was posted by a single purpose account which has done no editing not related to Mate1. Many of this account's edits consist of adding promotional links relating to Mate1 to other articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing but a promotion. use aboutus.com for wiki you can promote on. Nothing notable about this site to fit Wikipedia Alan  -  talk  00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Mate1.com does have coverage. Some, but not all, is listed in the references (T-net, Reuters, Quantcast, Alexa, Onlinepersonalswatch, Compete, Killerstartups, i-newswire, Allbusiness, Seomoz, Bizjournals, Redorbit, Socialmediaportal). Mate1 is also covered in scholarly articles on the subject, like http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/justine/pressclippings/cqr20060728.pdf and  http://www.directworks.org/uploadedFiles/Educators/Research_Summit/Qiufullpaper.pdf
 * Is news coverage the only thing that validates an article or makes it relevant?
 * Thank you once again for all of you help so far. I continue to try to improve my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JannTomaro (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The first of the two "scholarly articles" cited above contains a table table showing numbers of visits to various dating sites. It shows us that Mate1.com received 2354 visitors in an unspecified period: that is the only mention of Mate1.com. (Presumably to find what period is covered one would have to check the original source from which the table is copied, namely comScore Media Metrix.) Incidentally calling this a "scholarly article" seems somewhat odd: it is in a quite ordinary, non-academic magazine. Now for the second "scholarly article" (which is genuinely scholarly). That article uses an example to illustrate a method described in the article. For the purpose of that illustrative example it uses a list of 20 web sites. This time we are not even told any statistic about Mate1.com, such as number of site visitors: all we are told is that the authors of the article chose to include it in a list of 20 which were used for illustration. There is no other mention of Mate1.com in the article, apart from its appearance in this list. Frankly, if these two links are given as evidence that Mate1.com has received substantial coverage, then the situation must be fairly desperate. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely needs work and more references, but I think it's a keep. --Adrian Archer (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable site; article appears to be strictly promotional in nature. --mhking (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As creator of this article I recognize that it is not meeting the criteria for approval by Wikipedia. I would like to nominate the article for deletion in recognition of the importance of the high standards that Wikipedia maintains. How may I request the article is up for speedy deletion? Please excuse me for any inconveniences that I may have caused and thank you for helping me with the article thus far. I appreciate all of the effort. I hope to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Thank you once again. --JannTomaro  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.181.2 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: In this edit JannTomaro confirms the/she was indeed the author of the above comment, despite the lack of a logged-in signature. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2010 (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.