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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:00Z

Adam4Adam[edit]

Adam4Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Dating website for, well, Adam and Adam. Speedy deletion was overturned on review, so is now here for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple non-trivial media sources. Nardman1 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:WEB does not say: "A topic is not notable unless it has been the exclusive subject (etc)." An article discussing how Adam4Adam was used to lead a person into a situation in which he was murdered certainly does qualify as verifiable notability. An article about how Adam4Adam and Manhunt.net can lead to discharge from the Military qualifies as well. These aren't trivial mentions and these aren't trivial subjects. I bet most of us will think what we have here is verifiable notability. I bet a few will argue it isn't. We can discuss semantics and wikilawyer each other senseless. We could also use our best judgement a little. Are the references here a smoke screen or has Adam4Adam really gotten spontaneous media courage? Is this article spammy and pointless POV clutter or is it more in keeping with the sort of NPOV encyclopedic info we generally strive to present? Shaundakulbara 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article about how people being discharged from the military mentions Adam4Adam in one sentence and does nothing but mention the name of the site, I fail to see how that is anything but trivial. One Night In Hackney 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet WP:N and has enough NPOV to make the owner cringe. Jeepday 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article was just spam originally, was speedied and salted, then brought back. It has come a long way and definitely asserts notability; there are even real sources! Im surprised it was speedied again at all.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And boy, that is one doozy of a deletion review.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that the version that was speedied was this one [1]. The article has been considerably expanded since then. WJBscribe 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. I've looked at every one of the sources (bar the NYT which is members only) and aside from the FlavaMen review (which is questionable) not one of the sources has Adam4Adam as the subject of the article, mostly they are just brief mentions. One Night In Hackney 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is somewhat misleading. For example, some of the references deal with the New York crime that involved the website. Of course these articles do not have the website as their main topic. An article that is about crystal meth use that refers numerous times to the website is still about crystal meth, not adam4adam, but nonetheless it is a valid source. The WP:WEB criteria are meant to help establish the notability of a site in lieu of other, obvious criteria. The fact that this site has been verifiably involved in several off-line news stories and that there is a steady accretion of relatively minor mentions of it seems to me to counterbalance the fact that we can't point to a single newspaper article that's about the site. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm using the main notability guideline, which states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." The WP:WEB guidelines didn't seem as appropriate as they state "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", and most of the sources make little reference to the content. One Night In Hackney 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet WP:WEB per above. Alexa rank is 7,186. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shaundakulbara—indeed the murders themselves pass WP:N, and these murders are an element of this article. As for the other WP at hand, perhaps the unusual circumstances of this subject already bring it somewhat out of the intended scope of the more specific WP:WEB, even if not technically. --gwc 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per Shaundakulbara's comments, we certainly don't have to bend the rules to keep this. It's verifiable notability could barely be clearer. The WP:WEB guidelines cited against this article are inclusionary guidelines, not exclusionary ones. House of Scandal 08:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Gwc and Nardman. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - multiple non-trivial media sources. --Candy-Panda 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are trivial; site doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for WP:WEB Philippe Beaudette 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several news articles linked are even titled 'such and such website does this' and make it clear they are talking about that website. It is clearly the subject of several newsworthy reports and seems to be notable enough therefore for WP:WEB.--Dacium 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - practically every mention is trivial, and some are exceedingly trivial. One somewhat noteworthy event connected to something does not make the place/thing encyclopedic. If someone was murdered at a local mom-and-pop shop, that wouldn't make that mom-and-pop shop worthy of an article. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have yet to see a reference to this site which was actually about this site. In all the references posted to the article and to the previous discussions, the reference was a casual mention of the site in an article which was primarily about some other topic. These do not meet the established standards for media coverage. I'll change my opinion if someone can offer evidence of actual coverage about the site itself. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete - WP:N states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Kennedy, Sean (August 29, 2006) The Advocate. They're peddling death. Issue 969, page 44 might be consider one source. In September 2005, San Jose Mercury News (September 11, 2005) "Busiest online matchmakers." Section: AE ranked Adam4Adam as number ten on the top 10 online dating sites based on traffic in the year prior to September 2005: 1 Yahoo! Personals, 2 Match.com, 3 eHarmony, 4 American Singles, 5 Gay.com Personals, 6 Tickle Matchmaking, 7 Webdate.com, 8 True.com, 9 Perfect Match, 10 Adam4Adam. However, I did not find multiple sources for Adam4Adam. Lots of interesting information, but the information should come from a Wikipedia source per WP:N to be counted as contributing to a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Added: Wikipedia:WikiLawyering includes asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. The article has come a long way and is one of the better Wikipedia online dating articles. As the number of references for the article increased during this AfD, there now seems to be enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, which is a principle behind WP:N. Keep as notable. -- Jreferee 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had no idea Adam4Adam was the #2 gay site (as your figures above indicate). I added material from The Advocate after seeing your mention. When I was done, I took a look at the article. Now I sort of hope the article gets deleted. Because it's free, Adam4Adam is used by many people without much money, and its also used by lots of non-White people. It has no cultural prestige and it seems to only get mentioned as part of blaming it for some ill or horrendous incident. Katie Fucking Couric isn't going to do a cute human interest story about how two boys met on Adam4Adam and are now dating steady. The owner(s) of Adam4Adam won't appear on The View. Right now the article looks like a litany of crime, disease and other troubles. People use it for dating as well as sex. Using it is not a character flaw. As is, the article looks like exactly what a hate groups needs to say "gay people are scum...this encyclopedia article even says so". House of Scandal 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Here are most of the headlines from articles that include Adam4Adam: * Connection between methamphetamine use and unprotected gay sex * Battling H.I.V. Where Sex Meets Crystal Meth, * Peddling death, * Hate crime charges in belt attack; Brooklyn men face bias slay counts if Web-Lured gay designer dies, * From Crime to Arrest, By Way of Computer, * Brooklyn prosecutor: Hate crimes charges for 3 in gay man's death. -- Jreferee 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and comment--the above comment indicates why the article should be kept and improved, not why it should be deleted.DGG 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)t[reply]

Comment The content of this site isn't too different than that of its competitors (I assume). The content isn't what's notable. Per WP:WP:

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...

It then says, "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use..." It doesn't demand that sources focus on the content. It doesn't demand we abandon sense and it doesn't order us to throw our babies out with the bathwater. It offers rough guidleines to use when notability isn't otherwise apparent. Here, notability is apparent if we use our best judgement. Can anyone say, "this is a waste of our servers...you shouldn't be able to read about this on Wikipedia"? Shaundakulbara 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just added a review from About.com. Seems there are sources out there about the site specifically, though they make take some time to find when you have to wade through the articles about drugs and murder that mention the site... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "review" is little more than a reprint of the 'About Us' page of the Adam4Adam site. One Night In Hackney 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confident that SatyrTN didn't realize that the About.com review was mostly lifted from the site (I think all this means is that the reviewer is lazy and agress with what the site reports itself to be, but nevertheless...). While the fact that About.com has a review about Adam4Adam at all all seems to add notability, I excluded that review on this basis. I have, however, been bothered by One Night In Hackney's unexplained testimony that the FlavaMen review "is questionable". One rarely sees a review so neutral -- it praises and damns Adam4Adam almost in the same breath. House of Scandal 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also confident SatyrTN made the comment in good faith, however I was noting the content of the review for the benefit of any further contributors. In my opinion the FlavaMen review is questionable because of the lack of in-depth review. WP:WEB classes trivial coverage as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", and in my opinion the review is borderline trivial, hence my questionable comment. Other people may not view it as questionable, I hope that answers your question? One Night In Hackney 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for clarifying the basis of your opinion. I completely disagree because the review contains multiple points of original information and far surpasses anything resembling "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site".--House of Scandal 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Shaundakulbara Jeffpw 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Verifiable sources list Adam4Adam as the #2 gay dating site in the world (or at least the English-speaking world) in Sept 2005 and as the #3 such site in December 2006. Is there no guideline anywhere that suggests a website, book, company, toy, device, whatever that appears on published lists as one of the most-used in the world has notability?--House of Scandal 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I got impatient and found an answer to my own query. A website is also a business and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says the following:

An organization is automatically notable if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications...The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

These guidelines explicitly allow for indices more specialized than mega-lists like the Fortune 500. Adam4Adam appears as one of the top ten dating sites (gay, straight or otherwise) in the United States (although not in the world as I stated previously). On Wikipedia we do not distinguish between a company and its services (look at McDonald's, H&R Block or anything you can think of). Therefore, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Adam4Adam is "automatically notable" and it would be so even if we didn't have over a dozen newspapers references. --House of Scandal 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A list of "top 10 dating sites" is hardly a "company ranking index", by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore the "broader or the more specialized" comment specifically refers to stock market indices, not lists of dating sites. One Night In Hackney 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A list of "top five online florists" is a ranking index. A list of "top twenty pizzerias in New York" is a ranking index. Stock market index is a narrowly defined term. "Company ranking index" is not. As was predicted above, we're Wikilawyering. The way this article looks now, it doesn't need me to say any more. --House of Scandal 12:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The provided examples of company ranking indices in WP:CORP are quite clear, and do not include "top 10 dating sites". One Night In Hackney 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since this site and the controversial aspects of its usage have become newsworthy, I believe it should stay. The article is not a mere advertisement for the site and serves to highlight a particular group of crimes perpetrated against gay men through manipulation of the sites services. Since my own interest in LGBT studies is in the area of crimes against LGBT people, crimes perpetrated by LGBT people and cultural reactions to both, I will attempt to improve this article and maintain it's quality.Lisapollison 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - is very obvious in this case Fotografico 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I suspect that notability was better established in the article only recently, because currently the keep is a no-brainer. ^L_Wizard @ 00:41, 10 February 2007 (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.