Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predators Watch


 * 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. The nomination statement is very persuasive and I accept the arguments made in it entirely - no rebuttal was forthcoming despite multiple relistings. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Predators Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am bringing this to AFD because although the article is slowly becoming a coatrack for people whom I suppose are victims of this, and I appreciate the effort to inform people about such things, ultimately Wikipedia is not the venue for that. I cannot find a single reliable source that could establish independent, third-party coverage of this website, or its operators. Many web scams (and for purposes of NPOV I'm not claiming this is one) are routinely covered in mainstream media. This one does not appear to have that distinction. As such, the only references I could find (and the only ones in the article at this point) are other non-reliable scam report websites, message boards and the like. There's even an anonymous Reddit posting. Therefore the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * *keep* There are references in many publications to this and sister site which I have added. Does it help? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The material and references you added are about "Potential Prostitutes", not Predators Watch. This is the deletion discussion for the latter. If you feel you have enough material for an article about the former, and that they meet the notability guidelines for inclusion, you are welcome to create an article about them. I understand they might be related or operated by the same people, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you do create an article that meets our notability requirements, I'd have no problem turning this into a redirect. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of them are for both web sites if you check. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  00:30, 7 March 2013 (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.