Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OKComrade

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. Due to the current sourcing provided for the article, the article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OKComrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is promotion of project of questionable notability Jes5199 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep covered in the Guardian and Telegraph SatansFeminist (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft and userfy instead because my searches found a few extra links many of which were actually listed here to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has coverage in Critical Theory, The Telegraph and Digital Journal for one quotation each. The reminder of the sources are Facebook mostly, with one buzzfeed, one Twitter and one Huffington Post source, all which are sources to avoid, especially the Huffington Post one. As for the contents, it generally lacks core contents. Everything in it is either anti-OkCupid content or trivia that can only complement core material. In general, there is an absence of notability and content. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources to full articles about the subject in The Telegraph, Digital Journal, The Daily Dot, and The Huffington Post. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and, in particular, Codename Lisa's note above on the poor quality of the sources. Besides, we don't need a page for every internet startup, however amusing. --Gimubrc (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no justification of long term significance or impact - has no established impact on online dating. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS -- Callinus (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' The soucrces are there so it meets WP:GNG.Fiachra10003 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2016 (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.