Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeoutclub

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 No consensus to delete; default to KEEP - Philippe | Talk 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Makeoutclub

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Makeoutclub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

marketing crap, certainly unnotable, Jonathan Williams (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I can't see any reason for a delete... Website has multiple 3rd partly media sources mentioning it's notability. I have checked them and they all look fine. ???- perhaps Jonathan Williams can elaborate on which wiki guidelines this article is infringing upon that warrants a delete?Gregg Potts (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

':*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Needs WP:HEY I was hoping the CNN/Associated Press and Billboard articles had enough meat on them to satisfy the Notability criterion. Unfortunately, the articles only cover social networking sites in general, and list Makeoutclub as an example. This is what we call a trivial mention, and does not meet the guideline requirements. However, I believe that if the article was worth inclusion in the AP article, then more than likely there are articles out there on it, and if it were added before the deadline as a source, then the article would probably be kept. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Ordinarily I'm for deleting unreferenced articles about social networking sites, but in this case I have to suggest making an exception. I believe that being the subject of a chapter in the book listed at the bottom of the article is sufficient notability, let alone the secondary sources. (I agree that they're minor but, coupled with the book, I suggest they're sufficient.) "And for me, the idea that this site provably pre-dates more well-known social networking sites gives it a kind of secondary notability -- I can't point to a policy about this, just suggesting that the notability comes from more than one direction and thus is more solid. I suggest that it's more necessary to have this article than others for those interested in the historical development of social networking sites AND for the background on emo. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - have you noticed that the link to a supposed book is a dead one? A 2-28-08 search of GoogleBooks reveals only two passing mentions, neither apparently of substance. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Strange, it worked for me a little while ago. Anyway, the Amazon listing for the book can be found here. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This person saying the website isnt a social networking site and used PHPBB hack isnt true. I opened the site the summer of 2000 and everything on it was our own code. Of course by todays comparisons it wasnt as feature rich as say a myspace, it did pave the way and was the first and only until around 2002 (suicide girls) and 2003 (Friendster)... learn your facts before you talk shit... honestly im fucking fed up, its been 2 years of trying to get a wiki entry in here and it keeps getting shit on by you elitist assholes, yanked, deleted, or completely wiped out... MAkeoutclub has been an active community since 2000, how is that undeserving of an entry here? this website caters to frivolous bullshit all the time but wont accept an entry from the first social networking website ever? go figure... web 2.0 fucktards...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.113.207 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete - There's plenty of more notable, far earlier social networking sites documented on Wikipedia; Bolt.com for example. It will set a really bad precedent for every no-name mesageboard-based community to be considered "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.226.112 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Accounting4Taste, it was not a social networking site any real sense, but a hack of phpbb or something similar with user profiles. Doesn't have very much to do with emo really either. Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable per WEB. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable per WEB. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable. The references barely mention the site in passing and are not articles about Makeoutclub per se. Bphenry (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not true; the Portland Mercury article is completely about Makeoutclub. — brighterorange (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• And yet the TAGWORLD entry still exists without problem on Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.34.194 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• A quick whois reveals the above poster's IP address is owned by "3jane" the parent company of the topic at hand. Jonathan Williams (talk) 0:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - We have had an incredible amount of trouble keeping our entry on here... and I guess Im confused as to what it is we are actually doing wrong? We have been online since 2000, and were absolutely the first niche audience social networking site (though back then we called ourselves a community) geared toward indie rockers. We were on MTV2, Much Music, Tech TV had a 15 minute segment on our site in 2003, we were in Spin Magazine, and had an entire chapter in Andy Greenwald's book "Nothing Feels Good". Our entry is deleted almost monthly or vandalized by people who have an agenda against MOC and it's admin. I would like to contact or be contacted by someone at wikipedia who can help us keep our entry and protect it against vandalism and unwarranted deletions. I can be reached at <redacted>. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.92.113 (talk • contribs)
  • reply - earlier versions of the article flatly stated, "Makeoutclub was one of the first sites to embody what became known as social networking" with no qualification about "geared toward indie rockers" - that is why the issue keeps being raised. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable per WEB.--76.15.165.151 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Please explain what is not notable (beyond what Orange Mike said above). The makeoutclub.com entry was removed from deletion contention in September and had been currently revised to include more notable aspects of the site. The most vocal for deletion is someone with a vendetta against the site due to being banned years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdeligate (talk • contribs) — Exdeligate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong delete. Obvious campaign by the site's operators to keep this article as a promotional vehicle, also not notable per WP:WEB. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment you can clearly see the history of the edits from the Wikipedia page. Your comment is baseless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdeligate (talk • contribs)
    • I stand by my comments, and as I advised you on the message you left on my user talk page, please keep this AfD discussion on this page, not on user talk pages. And learn how to sign a message, for Pete's sake. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment We were proud that users and visitors from the MOC site had drafted 99.9% of the MOC wiki unsolicited. It is not a 'campaign by the sites operators as a promotional vehicle'. With citations to prove the place MOC holds in history, former Wiki admin approval and the existence and acceptance of less "notable" social network sites, deletion at this point is a clear sign of discrimination. Exdeligate (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. (I've written that sentence so many times, I could do it in my sleep. In fact, I think I just did.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The calls for deletion are mainly coming from IP addresses in the same area. If the Makeoutclub entry violates a policy and was given unbiased treatment that would be understandable but someone is clearly on a mission to get it deleted.216.254.34.194 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)216.254.34.194 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This comment seems rather ironic, coming from an anon IP user. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. trivial mention in media does not prove notability HussaynKhariq (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment MOC greatly influenced web 2.0 social networking and was one of the first of its kind. This was made evident by those "trivial" media mentions (that all had citations within the original Wikipedia article)Exdeligate (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sources (though only one good one) exist on the page, and a few others seem to also exist. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=makeoutclub&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&start=10 Hobit (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be some shameless attempts to employ Meatpuppets both via their site's main page and Accounting4Taste's recent WP contributions. --208.120.239.200 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Shameless and outright blatant. Just see their main page at [1]. If that's not blatant, I don't know what is. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply How is it either? They're being bullied because your admin was banned from the site.

• I could care less who you've banned from your site. The site does not meet notability standards for web sites. Period. And campaigning on the home page of your site for people to take part in this discussion will only further alienate you to The Powers That Be here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Coming in as a third party, I can see the issue is quite polarised here. First of all, I'll proclaim any competing interests - I am neither a regular nor a member to the site, but came to this article through the above-mentioned link. My main aim is to see Wikipedia become a respected and accurate source of information for many topics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have an infinite amount of space, so notability has to be established. If you see on the Talk page (i.e. here), I've posted some statistics and other information from a cursory search of information about the site (primarily from Alexa and Google). I'm setting up a list on this page for all parties to list themselves and their interests, so who know who's who and what they want out of this. I'll leave it at the bottom of the page for now; please use it. -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Those of you claiming that everything is done by site operators, give me a break. The last major update (which expanded its size exponentially) was done by me, and the site operators and myself have some pretty serious differences - I didn't write this for my health. As for notability, it has (at least) one book reference, it has several newspaper references (though mostly from college papers) and a variety of web reviews and references. There's absolutely no reason to delete this. I don't understand why there's any notability issue here. Drhamad (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

<<List moved to talk page -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)>>

Exdeligate (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't dump all that crap onto the AfD page. Edit them into the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While I found Makeoutclub mentioned in different industry related Websites, the article it self cannot establish notabilty because there showl be a specific industry sourrce with a story about the Website. So if you can Time, Villagevoice or some other newspaper type Websites to write an article about the site, then it would be notable. Get some social media ranking Website to write a dedicate article about the Website it will be notable. You cannot just say Makeoutclub.com is used for finding a date in a Time article about dating and consider that notability per Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a small entry about an existing, referenced, social website. It does not appear to be advertising. It appears to be edited and contributed to by persons other than the site's operators. There is no substantial explanation as to why the article is not notable. No general notification has been given as to an approaching limit to Wikipedia's server space. Millions of people rely on the Wikipedia to provide quick, concise information that is unavailable elsewhere. The deletion of this article would make that information, in this case, unavailable. The existence of the article does not diminish or blemish the Wikipedia in any way. The value of one half of the human work hours expended in this discussion would probably have paid for the storage space of the article in perpetuity. The other half of the work hours could have perhaps been spent improving the article, if there is a concern about the neutrality as it stands. I am not sure, but I feel like I have found something distasteful here. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this advertorial. Sources (such as they are) are trivial and fail to establish the importance or significance of this site. Just another social networking site, basically, and apparently written from personal knowledge not sources. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete sources need to establish notability, not just that it exists. The sources fail to do so TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - enough cites to show some measurable notability, but just barely. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep Appears to just barely meet WP:WEB. The Portland Mercury and the Iowan source seem to push it over the edge. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (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.