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 Deleted under G11 by myself.
Guerillero |
My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The website is down for the most part: the article itself mostly talks about why is online dating so big and it feels like a business proposal more than anything else. There is no importance to this site that was given out.
User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable website. --
Katarighe (
talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Tagged as spam, don't know why this article had their original CSD declined in the first place, very obvious advertising and the two "reliable sources" listed doesn't have anything to do with this website, the rest of the sources aren't reliable.
Secretaccount 04:09, 20 December 2011 (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.
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 Deleted under G11 by myself.
Guerillero |
My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The website is down for the most part: the article itself mostly talks about why is online dating so big and it feels like a business proposal more than anything else. There is no importance to this site that was given out.
User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable website. --
Katarighe (
talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Tagged as spam, don't know why this article had their original CSD declined in the first place, very obvious advertising and the two "reliable sources" listed doesn't have anything to do with this website, the rest of the sources aren't reliable.
Secretaccount 04:09, 20 December 2011 (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.