Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK dating awards

:{{la|UK dating awards}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UK_dating_awards Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|UK dating awards}})

No real evidence for the notability of this organization or its awards. Almost none of the people or companies receiving awards or connected with the organization are notable enough for WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and copy edit/prune some of the unverified list content – Enough coverage is available to meet WP:GNG, although more would be ideal. Maybe other users can find more. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:*{{reply to|Northamerica1000}} Two of the three seem to pass muster as sources. However, the "Evening Standard" mentions "UK Dating awards" only in passing, so this won't do. In any case, I'm going to hold off on my Ivote for now, and see if more sources show up. I will try to find some myself later. And thanks for posting these. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

::*{{Re|Steve Quinn}} Try just searching just for "Awards" and notice how it's used in four ¶ on the page in reference to the topic, although the last ¶ is only one sentence. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

:::*{{re|Northamerica1000}} Apparently, I misread the "Evening Standard" article the first time through - probably because I was tired. Now, I have to say that this whole article actually qualifies as coverage for this topic. It is important background related to this topic. We could definitely use this material in this article. Do you think we should do without the lists that follow the prose in the Wikipedia article? Or somehow shorten or truncate these? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

::::*{{Re|Steve Quinn}} Per my !vote above, prune some of the unverified list content. I don't mind leaving the remaining content in place as a list, or incorporating it as prose in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::*{{re|Northamerica1000}} I found a couple more and I am placing those links and your links on the article talk page. Also, let's move the discussion over that way. Maybe you can look at my sources and let me know what you think. I am going to try to find more. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete the first of anything seems to be attractive to media outlets, but it seems like there is very little in the way of significant coverage for the subsequent year(s). As DGG mentions, there are Wikipedia pages for less than a quarter of the winners, meaning either we're severely lacking in articles, this is a niche/walled garden event, or it was a nice experiment but is largely non-notable to the general populace (I notice the only coverage of 2015 was from "Global Dating Insights"). Unless there is significant coverage in 2016, my thoughts are that it is option #3. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Many people are using online dating. There are over 8000 online dating websites. I suppose the goal of Wikipedia is to inform by providing objective information. Thus these awards provide a valuable benchmark IF these awards are notable. The awards are supported by the ODA (www.onlinedatingassociation.org.uk) who do not have a wikipage but have coverage by the telegraph, BBC etc and backed has members such as Match.com. Hence I believe this page is relevant and must be improved and I think I should start a new wiki project ; create a page for the ODA lol. mkraay30 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

::"Popularity" does not automatically equal "notability". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so using Wikipedia to validate the existence of something as "notable" is entirely backwards. As we say often on IRC, get the notability first, and then get a Wiki page. And, to be fair, you even question the page's notability in your response. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.