Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CatchGod

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CatchGod[edit]

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

The only two English language references are passing mentions. Unless corrected by an editor who can read the Chinese language ones I see no verification of notability and precious little notability anyway, if any. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not pulling up anything on a search. I tried searching using "开搞网", but I didn't pull up anything substantial. There was a little chatter about how people are using it for sex hookups, but not really anything else. There's a lack of overall coverage of this. If someone can find coverage in Chinese then I'm willing to be swayed, but I couldn't find anything using the Chinese term and Google Translate- not even really enough to think that there'd be sources with a little more digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not have notabilty, due to the lack of reliable secondary sources and small 20,000 people userbase. Out of the 6 Chinese sources, there were 3 primary sources, 1 citizen journalism website, 1 broken link that leads to the site's home page, and only one real news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1234l (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Two cited English-language sources had extremely trivial coverage (just mentioning it was the dating site used in a couple stories about other topics). Did not find additional sources. Relying on Jh1234l's summary of the Chinese-alnguage references used. Agyle (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.