Talk:Out (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is not an advertisement for my website at all. The Out website is probably the most influential website for the gay community in the UK, and in many other countries. It's the oldest gay oriented website around with a large, loyal, following of members. It has fought hard to be a not-for profit website and is unusual in the gay space for not concentrating on sex in any way.

Out has been run exclsively by a team of volunteers for over 10 years, giving their time freely for a website that has, pretty much literally, changing people's live: providing a lifeline in times of stress, and friendship and 'real world' community for people around the world. Recently, Out has started to employ a small team and is still supported by some of the oringal volunteers.

Please don't delete this article. If it isn't 'complete enough' then make suggestions on what kind of additional information would be useful.

Out (website)[edit]

Discussion copied from AfD so as to not crowd the voting process

Article is exclusively POV and unreferenced claims about size: "The website is probably one of the most influential gay community sites (certainly in the UK where it has most of its members)" " The main differentiator of the site is the organization of events that take place in the real world and the emphasis on friendship." " the largest social networking club for gay people in the UK. The site is free of charge for casual use, and provides member profiles, a messaging system..." " involved with a number of charitable causes" "The site now has around 50,000 active members, and claims rapid growth." Reads like an advertisement. My vote Delete - Glen T C 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can track down a reference for the membership numbers, but this can't be checked without access to some very sensitive information from the site owners I would imagine. It isn't exclusively POV, the feature list is factual, the date of inception is factual. As another member has stated, the Alexa ratings are factual. The info about SING is factual. None of this is POV. I would also draw your attention to the article Out (magazine) that is written in an almost identical style, with more hype! I'n not suggesting that a bad article is kept because there are similar ones on wikipedia, but a consitant approach is needed. The website site is a genuinely important one with a history (especially) in the UK which is pretty much unique. Many of the 50,000 members would vote for the entry to stay I'm confident.David scholefield 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Fantastic, if they vote then it stays, that's the idea! And while I agree that its Alexa rank of 35,000 is respectable, as it is the article reads like a PR release or commercial... All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! Maybe a rewrite is in order.. remember this is an ongoing process, if you improve the article then everyone's happy :) - Glen T C 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are also misunderstanding POV - if I wrote an article about me that just talked about how much money I had, how big my house is, how many BMW's I own and my Black Amex card - it could all be factual (no in my case it's not but you know what I mean) but only shows MY POV. The article needs balance. Hope this helps. - Glen T C 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The term 'POV and unreferenced claims' is emotive and suggests that my article is not substantiated. The point I'm making is that the membership figures can not be completely substantiated beyond the owner's claims and common sense arbitration through personal experience. The remainder is my POV, but is also factual (as is the case with most scientific theories if you want to get philosophical about the nature of fact). In some ways the comments about it being a bit like an advertisement I agree with, and a re-write is probably a good idea. This is a long way from immediate deletion though isn't it?David scholefield 14:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

David currently the article IS unsubstantiated. And unreferenced is certainly not emotive. And rest assured this is not 'speedy delete' and certainly not an immediate process. Let's take this to the talk page of the article as this is not the place okay? - Glen T C 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Per my comment on the AfD. I think there is some notability here but just a poorly written article. Maybe put a stub tag on it and see if you can get some other contributors to help do a re-write?--Tollwutig 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edit removing ad-like quality[edit]

I have fixed up the article. It may have a slight bent still that I couldn't iron out. Feel free to fix anything in it. --Mboverload 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Marking?[edit]

I agree with the edits - the article is certainly improved, and the stub status fits well. How will this affect the consideration for deletion? Can we remove this now? David scholefield 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes. They are the same thing - so obviously that it doesn't seem worth discussing it. I'll happily merge the two myself later today if I get a moment. David L Rattigan 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)