Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DontDateHimGirl

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DontDateHimGirl.com

Prod tag was removed by creator. Appears to fail WP:WEB. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• On closer examination of WP:WEB, keep. Meaningful 3rd party coverage can include "hey, look, latest net fad" sorts of articles and news blurbs, of which this site has several. Coverage linked by Google includes the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. — Lomn Talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it's been covered by several major media sources. I found out about the site on a video menu on CNN.com. A google search for "DontDateHimGirl" shows a remarkable number of hits. --Shultz III 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per voters above. The site itself makes this claim: This controversial site has been featured on MSNBC, the Today Show, ABC News and Entertainment Tonight, which is verifiable. Slowmover 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if someone adds those sources to the article. And fix the title. If the words are going to be pushed together then add a .com. If its more commonly known as "Don't Date Him Girl" then move it there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to include verifiable sources. There's a bit of sociological significance to the situation, and a level of importance-to-its-users that most websites including dating sites can't match. Barno 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being covered on CNN/Headlines tonight, saw the plug just as I logged in here. Monicasdude 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yep, several sources have covered this in the last few days as mentioned above.--Isotope23 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. NY Times coverage? Case closed. --maru (talk) contribs 02:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it has mainstream media coverage. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite This article is HEAVILY brused with POV, it should be rewritten in the neutral POV. DragonWR12LB 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of media coverage. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:30, 16 March 2006 (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.