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. To say the least, there is no consensus for deletion, but it looks like the arguments for retention seemed to have outweighed the deletion arguments here. –MuZemike 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudesnude[edit]

Dudesnude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but its meets WP:N and is well sourced, its one of the largest gay dating/hookup/networking websites in the world, with hundreds of thousands of members, compare with Adam4adam or Manhunt.net. Seems to have been nominated in bad faith by a user who tried to speedy delete it but what rebuked. Hemanetwork (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I do not see how the article meets WP:WEB or WP:N. The article is not well sourced. The sources are only brief mentions of the site that may prove its existence, but are not adequate secondary sources. The existence of the other article has no bearing on this article as each article must stand on its own merits. The number of members it has also does not have a bearing on notability - neither WP:BIO or WP:N use this criteria to establish notability.

Concerning your statement about "bad faith", I suggest you read WP:AGF and the criteria differences and processes associated with WP:CSD and WP:AfD before you again incorrectly accuse some of of bad faith. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the lack of dialogue until now didn't come off too well...

• Delete — Only two of the references cited in the article have the potential of being reliable sources about the article subject itself, the University of Melbourne source and the University of Illinois source.

• The purpose of the UM paper (which does not appear to have been peer-reviewed) was to "produce an exhaustive network map of Victorian gay men’s communities, characterising the groupings of gay men and the relationships that exist between groups" (from Executive Summary, p. 7, in part 1 of the study, available here), in which Dudesnude is mentioned and demographically analyzed as one of the several dozen groups of gay men included in the study through which men network; its importance or significance is not specifically discussed in the study and though data is reported in the study by which its importance or significance might be evaluated it would require prohibited original research to do so here at Wikipedia.
• The UI paper does appear to have been published in an academic journal, but the sole mention of Dudesnude is a single reference by a single interviewee as one Internet source that he uses, along with "Manhunt, MySpace, [and] Facebook", to meet partners, but the interviewee says that he does not use any one of the four any more than the other three.

It's clear from this that Dudesnude is popular enough to have appeared on the academic radar, but so far only as a data point. The general notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From this, it would seem clear to me that the UI paper is not support for notability and the notability of Dudesnude is not supported by more than one reliable source even if the UM paper can — at best — be stretched to be a support for notability. I can find no other reliable sources. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if it has, hundreds of thousands of subscribers?Hemanetwork (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 1) Popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability; 2) there is no evidence of subscriber levels presented in the article. ttonyb (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well i'll add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs)

• Comment Using a statement in the company's website does not support the statement. What is needed is an independent source per WP:RS. Regardless, popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added a couple more sources, anyone wanna help me search for more? i know they are out there.=)Hemanetwork (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a spread of cultural impact over several years which appears sufficient to justify against the GNG. The nomination refers to GHits and I find 80,700 listed in a simple Google search, it seems odd to dismiss them all as insignificant as I doubt they have been checked; such a large number of matches also raises the WP:SET argument, if this text is not kept as a stand-alone article then it ought to be merged rather than deleted on this rationale. As a side note (as this does not strongly influence a discussion on notability), the Alexa rank is 7,563 which is comparable to Gaydar (website) at 7,095. Fæ (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The Google numbers are notoriously wrong when first presented. A Google search of the title in quotes only lists 518 hits. One needs to go to the last page to see the following statement. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 518 already displayed." Again, popularity (including web ranking) has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • YOu yourself nominated this article because of google hits though. There are many sources now, including mentions in published works!Hemanetwork (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Hemanetwork noted, GHits were part of the nomination and I did say that as part of my opinion otherwise I would not have mentioned them. Should you strike this from the nomination I would be prepared to do the same for my opinion. I also do not understand your point, my Google search was for '"Dudesnude.com" -wikipedia' giving 80,700 hits and I get no statement about omitted results. (strike as I do understand the point after a re-reading, with my search I get 689 "most relevant" hits which does not particularly make me want to reconsider my opinion). Fæ (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that google news of substance seems to have been found just news if it's not google, what exactly makes it not notable at this point? (this is hemanetwork btw)Thisbites (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fae. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (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.