Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Connection (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 was keep. Sandstein 05:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Connection (website)

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

This is mainly a procedural nomination. This was a contested proposed deletion; the Prod tag placed by a Newbie was removed. It appears that this page might be marginally notable. I'm leaning towards deletion based on lack of notability and insufficient reliable sources, but I'd like to read others' comments and opinions. I have no connection to the website or its competition. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment * FYI, two days before the nomination, I tagged the article and requested the creator to fix the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On the strength of the Church Times article the organization has some sociological significance. It has collected three mentions in front-line national newspapers in the UK. I'd not oppose a redirect to some related general article if available. I sense that there are a lot of even less notable subjects of articles and a good number of these end up as "keeps" Jpacobb (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deprodder. In-depth articles in the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph (I'm gonna apply AGF in assuming that the article's correct in asserting this is from the sunday paper, which is a distinct publication), and Guardian constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can see that the second article is from the Sunday Telegraph by looking at the date. The two publications share a website, but they are separate editorially. MarkSG (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm obviously biased as I created the article, but I would argue that significant mentions in the majority of the UK's quality newspapers constitute notability. And, while I know that notability isn't a popularity contest, Christian Connection has considerably more users in the UK (and a higher Alexa ranking) than many of the other online dating agencies listed at the relevant category page. The media page at the Christian Connection website lists some more articles mentioning them (it's fairly short, but they're obviously selecting only the positive ones!), but the top two are in The Times and Sunday Times, which has a paywall so I can't link to them, and the third is a print-only publication that I haven't read and therefore can't quote. MarkSG (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian Connection is very well known within the Christian community - as of 2009, it was certainly the largest christian website in the UK (can't find anything ranking them more recently) http://www.keshersearch.com/top50.htm As for the wider community, the media coverage listed above is pretty mainstream, but one might also add http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324383/We-look-better-did-20-years-ago-Find-YOU-.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2694175/Christians-learn-the-art-of-dating.html Several dating websites are listed on Wikipedia, including ones that are less popular or even now offline - it is not clear on what basis this particular one might be considered less notable.(talk) Oriana Naso (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2012 (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.