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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyBlackBook[edit]

An editor added ((db-web)) (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.), and another editor removed it. I've been a bit suspicious of this article for a while, not sure whether it's notable or advertising, so I'm putting it up to the wider Wikipedian community to decide here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. This is definately advertisement. Icestorm815 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website. Keb25 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It's advertising, though less shameless than most I've seen here, and is not backed up by outside sources. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From their website: (paraphrased) Keeping track everyone a person has slept with using a notebook has always posed a security problem, so MyBlackBook has solved that problem by putting it on the internet! Yikes! I only found one real news story online, btw. --Mud4t 10:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nothing but purely promotional material. Christiantroy 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Resurgent insurgent 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep by virtue of newly added refs to CNet and Webpronews. Though the username of the article's creator raises conflict of interest possibility. Resurgent insurgent 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE - Article is cited, sourced and referenced. Google returns over 20,000 results. Notable website, and article has been in existence for quite some time. The article meets all wikipedia criteria, (set in neutral tone, etc) Resorb 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above user appears to be the founder of the site, so there's a WP:COI issue here. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resorb, Although the article does have some citations, those that do exist seem to be from self submitted news and press release distribution sites, which are not independent reliable sources. --Hu12 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INFORMATION - Several additional references have been added to the article to verify its content and show the members of wikipedia of it's educational merit. Resorb 23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep-site is not non-notible, hell, i've heard about it on the radio as well as seen people wearing some of their shirts- service seems unique since they appear to hold copyrights on various site aspects--||bass 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Main author left a note on my talk, so here I am. The article looks like it has problems with advertising, and COI, and what really matters: it lacks of independent, reliable sources. The citations point to press releases and regurgitated propaganda from the site's promoters. Fine idea, or not, Wikipedia isn't for advertising. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a COI problem, per this link: [1]. I'll be leaving a warning for the affected user. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unencyclopedic in tone and thoroughgoing WP:NPOV problems. The two short pieces that come nearest to establishing notability both conclude that it isn't a worthwhile service, yet none of that criticism makes its way into the article. Jehochman establishes that the primary author is the proprietor and (sole?) employee. Fails corporate notability guidelines, and for those who argue otherwise, better to scrap this PR piece and let an uninvolved editor start from scratch. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 18 September 2007 (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.