Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out (website)

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 Kotepho 08:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out (website)

Article is exclusively POV and unreferenced claims about size: "The website is probably one of the most influential gay community sites (certainly in the UK where it has most of its members)" " The main differentiator of the site is the organization of events that take place in the real world and the emphasis on friendship." " the largest social networking club for gay people in the UK. The site is free of charge for casual use, and provides member profiles, a messaging system..." " involved with a number of charitable causes" "The site now has around 50,000 active members, and claims rapid growth." Reads like an advertisement. My vote Delete - Glen ^T _C 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can track down a reference for the membership numbers, but this can't be checked without access to some very sensitive information from the site owners I would imagine. It isn't exclusively POV, the feature list is factual, the date of inception is factual. As another member has stated, the Alexa ratings are factual. The info about SING is factual. None of this is POV. I would also draw your attention to the article Out (magazine) that is written in an almost identical style, with more hype! I'n not suggesting that a bad article is kept because there are similar ones on wikipedia, but a consitant approach is needed. The website site is a genuinely important one with a history (especially) in the UK which is pretty much unique. Many of the 50,000 members would vote for the entry to stay I'm confident.David scholefield 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Fantastic, if they vote then it stays, that's the idea! And while I agree that its Alexa rank of 35,000 is respectable, as it is the article reads like a PR release or commercial... All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! Maybe a rewrite is in order.. remember this is an ongoing process, if you improve the article then everyone's happy :) - Glen ^T _C 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are also misunderstanding POV - if I wrote an article about me that just talked about how much money I had, how big my house is, how many BMW's I own and my Black Amex card - it could all be factual (no in my case it's not but you know what I mean) but only shows MY POV. The article needs balance. Hope this helps. - Glen ^T _C 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The term 'POV and unreferenced claims' is emotive and suggests that my article is not substantiated. The point I'm making is that the membership figures can not be completely substantiated beyond the owner's claims and common sense arbitration through personal experience. The remainder is my POV, but is also factual (as is the case with most scientific theories if you want to get philosophical about the nature of fact). In some ways the comments about it being a bit like an advertisement I agree with, and a re-write is probably a good idea. This is a long way from immediate deletion though isn't it?David scholefield 14:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

David currently the article IS unsubstantiated. And unreferenced is certainly not emotive. And rest assured this is not 'speedy delete' and certainly not an immediate process. Let's take this to the talk page of the article as this is not the place okay? - Glen ^T _C 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep pending a good re-write. Article is weakly sourced and POV, but notablily is there. I think ia stub tag is more appropriate. Bah I can't figure out a strikethrough. Changing to keep due to rewrite. Still needs a stub tag hopefully for further improvement.--Tollwutig 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --Tollwutig 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I have fixed the article up. Please review it. --Mboverload 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The website is at least as important as other websites such as Gaydarand deserves to be included. -flaxton

• Keep The article is now (note: I never saw it when it was more POV and ad-like) well-written, it is certainly no longer POV, and it asserts notability well. That's good enough for me. -- Kicking222 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I didnt see the article at the time of AFD, but it asserts notability from a neutral POV. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:32, 21 April 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.