Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skokka


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Skokka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly promotional, no plausible evidence of actual notability (among world's top 150 erotic websites? Not notable, really). -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am the creator of the article. I created it because I found it to be pretty interesting how a website with millions in visitors and traffics had no information in Wikipedia, when news sites all around the globe consider it an equal to pages like Backpage[1 ][2 ] and even dedicate their time to talk about them [3 ][4 ]. When it comes to Spanish speaking media there are tons of articles and press releases that talk about them, [5 ][6 ][7 ][8 ], to name a few. I understand it may have flaws since it is my first article, and I'd appreciate if you could point them so I can try and fix them, but I believe it fits within the impartial and informative topics that are covered in Wikipedia. --AnitaDinamita (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say and it makes me feel like I'm still too naive analising references. So for example I think this link [9 ] of a recently posted article would demonstrate the fact that they are expanding as they mention. It also talks about a visits volume, though it's not the same from the ones I obtained, and about an exclusive feature in comparison to their competitors I didn't know they offered, which is a call center and a free 24-hour attention service. Wouldn't it be informative as it specifies data about the company? AnitaDinamita (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think the creator has made a good faith effort here, but it's still not good enough. There is no substantive coverage in reliable sources, that is required to meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, some of the content is still promotional in nature: "It started small, centred in the world of escorts within a country, but not long after their launch they began with a worldwide expansion that keeps going as of now." The last section also falls foul of WP:NOR. Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete reads like promotional copy and is therefore a case of WP:PROMO. Looking at the references provided above, they are a mix of brief mentions or promotional content based on press releases so WP:GNG is not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – promotional piece on subject that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:04, 19 December 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.