Talk:Flirtomatic

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Untitled

2015 - None of the sites exist anymore plus the company does not exist !! 86.163.226.102 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)guest January 2015[reply]

I am working on amendments to the page to explain our unique position among social networking sites. These will be ready in the next couple of hours.

Thanks. However, a "unique position" isn't what's needed, it's notability. If the site isn't notable, it'll be deleted. Please see our notability criteria for websites WP:WEB for guidance. --Dweller 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are notable according to criteria 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as we are now distributed via the British Tabloid News of the World--the largest selling Sunday paper in the UK. Please see http://www.newsoftheworld.com/flirt

By the same criteria we also notable in that we are the first (and so far only) non-in-house service to be offered on Hutchinson Whampoa's (trading in the UK as 3 -- see http://www.three.co.uk) 3G portal. This does not run constantly, but is timed. As this could, depending on your location, be difficult to verify, I am happy to put you in touch with three directly.

Great. Please sign talk page entries with four tildes (~~~~) --Dweller 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see that...

Does the listing stand then?

Tatyree 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. With 265,000 members claimed and a working website, it has a head start in my opinion. However, consensus through discussion including many other diverse opinions will determine the future of this article. As a colleague pointed out, notability is the be-all and end-all.

I'd say this includes a topical aspect i.e. is the service the 'talk' of the local community, and has it also a fairly widespread element of fame by word of mouth? Difficult to prove, and to disprove, in some ways, but at least it appears to have escaped speedy deletion. Well done so far. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification and inappropriate external linking within article

Hi. I have addressed some issues today which I believe will be of future benefit to this article. Please discuss here, or here if you wish. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further on inappropriate links and notability

Apologies on the inappropriate linking--I'm new to working with this kind of copy.

Further to your criteria for notability, specifically as regards point 1 on WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself":

New Media Age have published on our model on a number of occasions, most recently in the 11 January 2007 edition (print and online). Commentary here and a longer article here. This article has also been referenced in a later edition.

SMS Text News, a UK mobile industry blog, has a great deal of coverage about us, in particular a piece about our inclusion on the Hutchison Whampoa's 3G portal.

We've also had coverage in the September 13th, 2006 edition of the London paper Metro (Associated Metro Limited), here.

We can provide references to published figures regarding our userbaser. The current figure was published in the February 18th, 2007 issue of The News Of The World. Older figures have previously been published in New Media Age.

I am having trouble with the citations templates, but will add these and others as soon as I have worked out the format.

Tatyree 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longer article isn't working. The rest of those mentions don't look terribly notable. In none of them are the website the actual subject of the coverage. The nma articles are all just passing quotes from the head guy on various topics. The blog is out because its a blog. The newspaper article still doesn't have flirtomatic as the subject as far as I can, their subject seems to be the issue of people working 5 days straight and something they do to relieve that. Its once again just quoting the boss guy for his take. The notability requirements stipulate that the site must be the subject of multiple non-trivial articles by reliable sources.--Crossmr 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flirtomatic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108145120/http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/40018/The-top-50-top-execs-in-mobile-content to http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/40018/The-top-50-top-execs-in-mobile-content/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]