Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badoo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:45, 2 September 2009

Badoo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article whose notability is in question; improperly sourced article lacking in-line citations and whose only "sources" are shaky. Corporation that operates this website is questioned as a data-mining service or large-scale spamming system —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~: I think this qualifies as a speedy delete as an article which threatens it's subject. It clearly makes unsourced statements about the website being a scam and such. It fails under WP:NPOV. Also, I see a lot of 2nd person language which seems to suggest original research. Most of the claims fail WP:Verifiability. The first two refs do not prove notability and the last ref is a blog. Why did this even go to AfD? This should have been a CSD G10.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those seem like arguments for deletion to me. Cliché though this may be: Be Bold and Fix It. It seems to be a site popular enough to warrant its own article and WP:PRESERVE preaches the preservation of information. +Hexagon1 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've clearly judged the article wrong. I am changing my vote to keep since the subject does have notability and someone fixed the attack.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment certainly not a G10 candidate as there are non-attacking / non-disparaging versions which can be reverted to. Maybe be original research and may be non notable, but certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be improved but a website that is ranked 131 in the world (Alexa rank) surely has a case for inclusion. Lumos3 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a prominent (apparently) website, article significantly different from the revision at nomination. +Hexagon1 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has demonstrated notability. If an Alexa ranking is the only criterion for inclusion, let's hurry up and create articles for all porn sites with high traffic rankings out there.74.62.38.20 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' No encyclopedic value whatsoever. {{unsigned|207.136.154.30|08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)}}
 *'''Keep''', a prominent (apparently) website, article significantly different from the revision at nomination. +[[User talk:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' Nobody has demonstrated notability. If an Alexa ranking is the only criterion for inclusion, let's we hurry up and create articles for all '''[[Talk:Porn_2.0#List|porn sites with high traffic]]''' rankings out there.[[Special:Contributions/74.62.38.20|74.62.38.20]] ([[User talk:74.62.38.20|talk]]) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Nobody has demonstrated notability. If an Alexa ranking is the only criterion for inclusion, let's hurry up and create articles for all '''[[Talk:Porn_2.0#List|porn sites with high traffic]]''' rankings out there.[[Special:Contributions/74.62.38.20|74.62.38.20]] ([[User talk:74.62.38.20|talk]]) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)