Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

VIDA Select

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks notability. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - present sources like the British GQ and Inc.  pieces (among others) as well as articles in Quartz   and Refinery29, mostly focusing on the interesting "ghostwriting" aspect of the site, suggest there is WP:SIGCOV. Aranya (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC))
 * Changing my vote to delete since I agree with HighKing's vote, which critically examines a good chunk of coverage presented in this AfD so far. Aranya (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:NCORP a company simply needs to have multiple WP:RS sources that focus on it to qualify. It appears that it does, with articles in Vice, Atlanta Magazine, Quartz, Esquire, ABC6 News, Refinery29, and more. It does not matter what the company does or how big it is. It's about independent & reliable press coverage to meet company notability) the problem with the article is that most of these are not sourced, and that it is poorly written and focused on company features, it should be marked for improvement, not deletion in light of these articles:
 * https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke9kd/this-dating-service-will-flirt-for-you-but-it-will-cost-you
 * https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/frustrated-with-online-dating-scott-valdez-decided-to-leave-flirting-to-an-expert-now-its-his-business/
 * https://qz.com/1247382/online-dating-is-so-awful-that-people-are-paying-virtual-dating-assistants-to-impersonate-them/
 * https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/a34931203/matchmaking-dating-services-online-apps/
 * https://6abc.com/vida-dating-service-app-apps/5450345/
 * https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2021/05/10473668/dating-app-help-messages-ghostwriters CosmicNotes (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. By NCORP requirements, each individual reference used to establish notability (as opposed to other references which are used to support facts/info within the article) must contain in-depth information on the company and also contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. All of the references mentioned by above fail as follows:
 * Vice reference is a description of an upcoming TV segment but it relies entirely on information provided by the company including an interview with the founder. There is no information provided that didn't originate from the topic company or founder. No Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Atlanta magazine reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * QZ reference is written by an associate of the company (a "closer"), not Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * Equire reference relies entirely on information provided by either the topic company or the CEO and even some people that used the service. There is no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * 6abc reference is basically an ad which relies entirely on information provided by the company/CEO/etc. No Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * Refinery29 reference contains almost no information about the company and relies entirely on info provided by the CEO. There is no Independent Content, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
 * Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:56, 12 August 2021 (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.