Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solemio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. GlassCobra 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solemio[edit]

Solemio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible speedy delete candidate: an online dating service company with no showing of importance. Inappropriate, essayish tone and promotional style: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - The site has as much importance as other online dating services listed on wikipedia, namely Match.com. All facts are verifiable, including the one you indicated: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - check reference 1 http://www.articlealley.com/article_565008_39.html "It has been found from online dating statistics that around 83 millions Americans aged 19 to 45 are interested in online dating services". Nevertheless I already changed this sentence. Online dating is a recent phenomena very interesting sociologically speaking and there are few credible information about it. I know it because I've been researching it. Wikipedia should have articles on this. Since there are articles about other online dating sites, why should this be deleted? Vanessa Rôla (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)— Vanessa Rôla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:WAX, as noted below. If other articles with similar problems are discovered, they'll be dealt with appropriately in due time. Cliff smith talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Online dating is indeed interesting, and we even have a whole online dating page about it (with citations to read more). However, it's not a recent phenomenon (JDate started in 1997--that's even before Google!). Match.com is a valid article because it makes specific claims about the notability of that website, not the topic in general. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree If you had red the articles o Wikipedia I suggested, you would know they are NOT all the same site. Sapo.pt is a web portal therefore it gathers several other websites namely Sol_(jornal), which I've used as reference an is a national newspaper. Furthermore, since this discussion has started and as a prove I was willing to re-write or edit the text I've already edited and added other references. Vanessa Rôla (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Sorry to disagree once again but despite the fact online dating has been around for around 10 years (if you consider first online dating services), the online dating boom is quite recent. It has about 4 years which may be considered long time in "internet-time" but is rather recent to be analyzed sociologically. I recommend you http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=2143 that talks about "a rising trend" in 2005. Besides, you must have in mind although it has been popular over the USA for a while, the rest of the world discovered it later. Vanessa Rôla (talk)
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SPAM for deletion there should be coherent reasons, and there are not, in fact, the decision of deleting, if taken, would only show lack of coherence, because indeed, there are articles about other dating services as well as with explicit advertisement. eg:match.com and plenty of fish... baring this in mind, this article should be a part of the Wikipedia Piccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:WAX. If we discover other articles with similar problems, then we will deal with them apppropriately in due time. MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable company/web product. There is content, it's cited, but it's all in support of the background material, not the Solemio itself. The article isn't online dating, so it doesn't matter how well cited and important that idea is in this article. The only thing saving this article from speedy-deletion is the statement about how many people use it--that's a claim of notability and it has a cite. Now whether a simple claim like "reached hundreds of thousands of users" meets our standard for websites, I don't think so (and I can't read the Portugese cite to know what it actually supports). DMacks (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Most of the references that were used are there to confirm the information about Solemio. I'm sorry you can't read Portuguese but the service is Portuguese and well Known in its country (which I believe makes it notable). Besides it doesn't seem fair to exclude a reference only because you don't know the language. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis and Jasynnash: spam. Cliff smith talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete PlentyofFish was not erased, it stood as an article with the following messages: "This article needs additional citations for verification." and "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". So why can't Solemio.com also stay...and Match.com International shows the immediate way -direct link- to get to its website in each countryPiccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Not Delete One measure for the same kind of information. Match.com International is an example of how Match.com is online and informs people all over the world about the exact page of their country. I believe that people look for information on Wikipedia when they want to know more about a subject and is not an efficient way to make advertising at any kind. Solemio article must stay online, so that people can read and know more about online dating, a global trend which has been growing globally in the last few years. Cristina PereiraIcetina (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Icetina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Spam! And why is it that all the users who voted to keep it have no (or few) edits? Even the bot detected that! Lady Galaxy 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam for a non notable website. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Keep block all obvious socks. JuJube (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can cite a reliable source that indicates genuine notability for this article. A reliable source is not optional for Wikipedia articles.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough references to establish Solemio's notability (establishing the notability of internet dating is irrelevant). The use of socks is disconcerting too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree 1. http://tek.sapo.pt/4M1/846869.html; 2. http://sol.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Tecnologia/Interior.aspx?content_id=99188, 3. http://tek.sapo.pt/4M0/824475.html. Not enough references to confirm the site's notability? Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are on the same website! If a subject is notable it should have multiple independent references. This does not. Rather that stating "I disagree" with everyone who thinks we should delete the article try finding some other sources. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree If you had checked the articles I suggested, you would know they are NOT all the same website. Sapo.pt is a web portal that gathers several other sites, namely Sol_(jornal), which is a national newspaper and that I used as reference. Furthermore, since this discussion has stared and to prove I was willing to re-write or edit the text, I already searched and added other references. Vanessa Rôla (talk)
        • Have you read this yet? You'll find that web portals are not generally considered reliable sources. The contents of the pages in question don't support notability only existence (which are not the same thing). You are allowed to improve the article itself by showing what makes it important/significant and supporting this with non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Instead you seem fixated on accusing people of not reading the references in the first place (which is not only not true but, also violates our assume good faith guidelines. Not being able to view the previous version you wrote which was speedily deleted I can't even see if you've attempted to address the original concerns or not. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the one questioning my intentions is you. If you think that the largest web portal of a country, a national newspaper and two research centers, amongst others, are not reliable then maybe your criteria should be reviewed. The only thing I was focused on was on expressing my opinion about this and defend why I think an article I researched for and wrote should not be deleted. I think this is the purpose of this space, to debate and share opinions. I must say I am truly disappointed. Once again there are other articles about services like this, written the same way, some with less references that did not have any problem and I had problems since day one - my first text was deleted, I've being editing it and asking for advice from wikipedeans but that seemed to be useless. Besides I regret I seemed to have bothered you so much because that was not my intention. Alongside I think it's pointless to keep trying to show the opposite of what you so strongly believe in and from this point on I would only be repeating what I have already said before. Thank you for your time. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK let's take the web portal out of it. We don't accept them as reliable sources and that is not about to change. As for the newspaper, Can you not link to the article on the newspaper's website? As for two research centers, Which two assert the notability of Solemio? Because I am not seeing it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC),[reply]
    • That's is the newspaper website that is hosted on Sapo.pt server. The article was published on the newspaper and made available on online version of it. (Regarding the research centers, Pew and Jupiter, they are there to statistically confirm what I've said about online dating in general and that was questioned here before - check first comments). Vanessa Rôla (talk)
  • Delete None of the english sources listed assert the notability of Solemio, they assert the notability of Online Dating. Whether the Portuguese sources assert any notability for Solemio is hard to tell since I can't read them. But they seem to be from web portals which have been mentioned above as not reliable sources. Additionally, even if the article was notable, it needs to complete rewrite.Tobyc75 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete English sources are not about subject. Portuguese sources appear to be rephrasings of the same press release (disclaimer: I don't speak Portuguese, I was using Google Translate) and don't seem to have substantive coverage of the company. Therefore, the article has insurmountable WP:V and WP:RS issues. gnfnrf (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • English references never intended to establish the website's notablility nor have I said that was their purpose. Regarding Google Transle, is commonly known that automatic translators often give wrong, misleading translations and are all translators nightmare. I already said for several times I was willing to edit or rewrite the text, if you think this is the case you're free do give me your input (other than telling me to read all the guidelines, which I had done in the first place). Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay then, I'll be plain: the article needs to make specific claims about why this website is important (it's the best, most popular, first, won awards, etc.) and there need to be several independent sources that support those claims. I don't care what language they are, but if they're not English, might be a good idea to provide a good translation of a few key sentences. DMacks (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your input. I'll edit the article taking into consideration your suggestions and make it available soon. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:42, 1 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solemio&oldid=1138777397"