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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niteflirt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORP. Notability is not demonstrated. There is an assertion which precludes CSD ("revolutionized phone sex") but there are no third-party sources of any kind, so the assertion is uncited. There is a slogan (complete with registered trademark symbol) and in general it looks like an advertising page, nothing more. Frank | talk 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Rymatz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about non-notable phone sex operator. The writing style leads me to estimate that the likelihood of a copyright violation is very high. I don't want to dive into their website to verify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Rymatz. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy as an advertisement. Most of the first sentence appears to have been lifted but the rest does not seem to be a copyright violation. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Retracted !vote - a previous revision of the article is much better (although has its problems) and includes sourcing. This article may simply need a revert and some cleanup. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked at the reverted/updated version and I still don't see that this subject meets WP:CORP, which begins: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Frank | talk 12:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a look at the sourcing and it fails to be significant coverage. They are just passing mentions that Niteflirt is one the services from the company Ingenio. A very weak case might be made that the parent company is notable, but Niteflirt isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Only one delete !vote was posted after the article was reverted to a state before some goober tried to spam it up. It probably will get deleted but a little more discussion on the current version would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that I think this is a relevant entry and should not be deleted. Like other companies that are marketplaces, like ebay, this company is one that many independent phone fantasy providers rely on for their income. It is a significant company in its industry, and it is useful for users of Niteflirt to be able to research the company's history, as well as for any potential competitors to do so. I believe the entry is out of date and that Niteflirt has split off from Ingenio, no longer being part of the same company. The problem I see is that the article needs to be updated, not that it isn't worthy of having a wikipedia entry. (This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I'm doing the markup right or commenting correctly. Apologies if so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffingthingsup (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above comment is unpersuasive. Ingenio seems to be notable, but this is not Ingenio, and notability is not inherited. This fails GNG and CORP so I see no reason to pull IAR because of specialized nature.--Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 10 September 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.