Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaydar (website)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaydar (website)

In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's the biggest gay dating website in the world. If it doesn't meet WP:WEB then WP:WEB is broken. David | Talk 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David. Fireplace 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unnecessary nomination, a cite sources tag would have been fine. SP-KP 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. Cadr 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Oh, come on. Keep per all above. Surely it would be reasonable to get a bit of an opinion on the matter before making these nominations? David L Rattigan 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, but its "biggest in the world" status may be sufficient, so long as WP:WEB is modified or clarified accordingly. ddstretch 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because this already does cite a few sources. Plus I think it's definitely notable. I don't think this fails WP:WEB at all. This is a good article. This should be kept. Allisonmontgomery69 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Strong keep I think everyone else has about said it, as this is pretty obviously notable and the article is fine. GassyGuy 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all keeps ILovePlankton 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, all you people must be gay! Why are you deleting this? It is a notable website. Fredil Yupigo 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Most people in London have a profile on it (well, except females and non-metrosexuals). horseboy 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The huge spread of use and the near-universal knowledge of the existance of the website within the gay community in London justify the existance of this article. It is also a very well known site within the gay communities of many other parts of the world.--Sandrog 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If knowledge of the site is so near-universal then it should be easy to document. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Phr (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator is either disingenuous or careless in claiming that the AfD for Thingbox contains a suggestion that the article on Gaydar fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB. Gaydar is cited there in the sense that "if Thingbox is deleted, Gaydar should be too"; in other words, it's unreasonable to delete either. The Gaydar article provides useful and reasonably balanced information on a prominent international website for the gay community that has played a significant role in changing the courtship mechanism over the past 8–10 years. The article concerns not just the website, but this social environment. The article has potential for expansion. It is no mere promotion for the website and, indeed, contains criticisms of the site. This nomination, IMV, is ridicoulous. Tony 11:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.but i do believe that the content for the page should be updated. The information contained on the page is limited, and it would be better if this was shown to reflect that of the page and content of the website. If this page is deleted, then it would be a case of discrimination against non-hetereosexual people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.86.3 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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.