Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrimonial sites


 * 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 Keep and rename to Marriage websites as matrimony refers to the Catholic marriage on WP and this article does not appear to be restricted to one faith alone. Marriage is the wider term for the union of two people in secular and religious practices, so it appears to be more appropriate for this article. (aeropa gitica) 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Matrimonial sites
Very narrow towards two sites in India, and may also be WP:SPAM (Not 100% sure on that though). Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - per nom. Most of the article is OR ("Believed to be a more serious venue", "Leading matrimonials sites.."). Not encyclopedic. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per great work by Uncle G. But needs rewrite. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, too narrow.  Daniel . Bryant  12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete page has no encyclopedic merit. -- Fullstop 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete completely POV and unencyclopedic. Sorry to say it, but I wouldn't know this type of site from a hole in the (Internet) ground :) --jam  es (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Keep and rewrite using sources cited by Uncle G. I shoudld learn to Google better.  --jam  es (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.  -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Web sites that provide matrimonial services are huge in India. They are certainly widely advertised.  (I see an advert for one practically every time that I look at an article on The Hindu.)  That this article only talks about two such sites is a result of the fact that the article doesn't appear to be based firmly upon sources (although it does cite one).  You'll find copious source matter on this subject in articles such as this article in The Tribune, this second article in The Tribune, this article in the New York Times, this article in the Deccan Herald, this MSN article, this article in Zee News, and this article in GaramChai.  Keep and send to rewrite. Uncle G 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, totally POV. - Shazbot85 Talk 16:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixing non-neutrality, when one has this many sources available, is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Please see Deletion policy. Uncle G 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and I think it would get spammy if left. Changed to Neutral given the rewrite & accept that possible future spam is not an issue Nigel (Talk) 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the good research and partial clean-up by Uncle G. Nom is now obsolete as to the spam issue, and while future spam is possible, that is not a reason for deletion.  This is verifiable material from reliable sources.  GRBerry 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important article from India's perspective. Needs a re-write as some OR present, but keep-worthy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - rename to "Matrimonial Websites/Services." Rama's arrow  17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a promising article that brings to light the importance of matrimonials sites to indian culture. It really does need broader representation across the board but it is in work and deserving to be kept. Professorgupta
 * 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.