Talk:Zoosk

SPAM

This page is pretty clearly spam. This article has already been deleted once. It needs to be deleted again. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as spam (WP:G11) and prior speedy deletions are not a valid reason for another speedy deletion (see WP:G4). If you think this article cannot be improved at all, you are free to use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to initiate a deletion discussion. Regards So Why 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to assume good faith on the creator's part. I'm tagging this and giving the creator (or someone else) a little time to clean up the problems. If these issues cannot be resolved, I'll go ahead with a deletion nomination. Henrymrx (t·c) 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on cleaning up the article, which I agree needs work. Full disclosure: I work at Zoosk. I will try to be as neutral as possible, and rely on the community to correct me if I am not. I feel that this page warrants its existence based on the fact that PlentyofFish, OkCupid and Chemistry.com all have pages, and are smaller than Zoosk by many measurements (which I will cite). I also contest the assertion that this page is spam. It does not currently have much information, but it does not classify as spam (see WP:G4), as noted by SoWhy. Morticae (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morticae, you need to STOP. You should not be editing this article AT ALL. EVER. See WP:COI. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that and I don't believe I've violated it. Users are cautioned against COI editing, but states clear guidelines for declaring your COI on the talk page, as I've done without prompting. I provided examples of other accepted pages in the same class as this website. The edits I made were purely factual data, based on third party sources, and I invite anyone to correct them. I'm not promoting, and I believe that all the information I've provided is general company information, and easily third-party verifiable.--Morticae (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, I believe what I've done falls into the category of "Non Controversial Edits" listed on WP:COI. I added an image, and I attempted to provide more reliable citations to public statistics. Again, if anyone believes these are in error, or I have presented them with bias, I welcome corrections. Thanks--Morticae (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Zoosk has just tried to charge one of my credit cards, without authorization, and this fraudulent attempt is now under investigation by Bank of America. I had never heard of Zoosk, when I received a call from Bank of America this morning. Since the charges were not significantly large for my account, the only reason I can think of that Bank of America would have notified me, is that the source of the charge(s) was suspicious. Conclusion: Bank of America recognizes Zoosk as a source of fraudulent activity. For this reason alone, I strongly recommend removal of this page.Jfbrenner (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, that may have been a case of identity theft, and not fraudulent activity on Zoosk's part. Still, that is not a valid reason for having a page being deleted, based on personal experience. WERETIGER (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Receiving Venture Capitol and Commercial Advertisements are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability 69.68.125.6 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]