Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo

DoYouDo

Not notable. Delete. - brenneman^{(t) (c)} 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • (this IP address is the same as the author of the article —Wahoofive (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
• Keep Appears to contain some valuable information, worthy of a place here. 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)tparker393
• Delete spam —Wahoofive (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn spam --RoySmith 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Seems to be the same user as User:Tparker393. See User:Tparker393/DoYouDo —Wahoofive (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The "notability and inclusion guidelines" referred to above were created by one editor ten days ago and has received no editing or discussion, thus has no validity at this time.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. See [1]. --cesarb 18:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by that, exactly? What criteria for deletion are you making reference to? MCB 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC) (This was not in reference to CesarB, but to the vote "Delete. Circumstances have changed and it needs to be pulled. 205.217.105.2 20:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)" which was deleted. My question was answered "personal reasons" which was changed to "business reasons" by anon user at 205.217.105.2. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. My inclination would be to keep the article and cleanup any advert/spam/POV issues, but only if it can be properly sourced/verified. The citation by CesarB makes it look like a hoax. --MCB 07:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-Notable by google test standards. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • OK, Bugs Bunny. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like spam to me. Suspect the anon of trolling (but that's neither here nor there) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just crap. Jwissick 23:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that.. Something fishy is going on here... read the anon users history and user talk listings.... Jwissick 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot going on that's fishy. Among other things, an anon user deleted a bunch of text from this VfD page, most of which was ostensibly from a different anon user. See this page's edit history. These deletions left some of the remaining comments rather out of context. It hardly seems worthwhile to go back and re-integrate the deleted text at this point, however, since it seems obvious that the article is going down. --RoySmith 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; spam. Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, with prejudice when it starts showing up again in other places. Nandesuka 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not promotional, has 3rd party coverage. "San Mateo-based doYOU2.com is expected to give MatchNet key competitive advantage as its matchmaking sites grow and become relationship portals, while also opening Match Net up to a younger audience." [2], also covered in Business Wire Kappa 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Reviewed the small re-write and the two links provided. No change in opinon: It's a idea that's cute but failed to go anywhere and recieved zero attention outside this page and the patent office. Thus still delete as not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge and redirect to Anonymous matching. I logged onto eCRUSH yesterday to see what that's all about. It seems identical to the system described in the DoYouDo patent, and eCRUSH is mentioned in the 2002 MatchNet annual report. See Talk:DoYouDo. I am trying to figure out, though, if the "proprietary and patented" process they use refers to DoYouDo's patent. In any case, if the stats eCRUSH claims[3](1.6 million registered users; 350,000 matches) are accurate, then the idea's notability and success are beyond dispute. DoYOU2.com's implementation was flawed, but it's just plain incorrect to say the idea "failed to go anywhere." 205.217.105.2 12:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this is the creator of the article referred to above by Wahoofive and CesarB [4]. In the future, please refrain from deleting votes and comments on active debates, even your own, it makes them confusing and requires information such as this to be reposted. A simple strikethrough works fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was having trouble making up my mind until the eCRUSH info came to light, and I didn't want my struckthrough comments to prejudice other people's votes. 205.217.105.2 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Why are you voting Keep on this article for a non-existant company based on the fact that a different company is similar?
        brenneman^(t)(c) 00:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The editor is countering your comment that the company's idea "failed to go anywhere". That a very similar method is used by eCRUSH is relevant to assessing the notability of DoYouDo. Innovations that turned out to be complete dead ends would be less notable. We should have an article on an innovative company that once existed independently but has now been acquired by another (e.g., Avalon Hill). JamesMLane 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but that's not even consistent with the facts presented in the article. A third company bought this with pretend money one based upon perhaps acquiring the already existant eCRUSH at some later date. Don't muddy the waters. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I know it was a third company. MatchNet acquired DoYouDo, while a different company eCRUSH, is using "a very similar method", as I wrote. It goes to the notability of the general subject area. I'll confess, however, that I would've voted "Keep" even without the eCRUSH information. JamesMLane 05:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the most important company in the world, but some readers might want information about it. This article isn't some promotional rehash of the company's brochure. JamesMLane 07:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --fvw* 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This user is quite active within a very small scope. I find it very hard to continue to WP:AGF with regards to what is or is not advertising here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not evidence of advertising. My style just happens to be that I focus attention on a particular subject until the project is complete. That is how I wrote four featured articles (although I think it would be tough for this subject to reach that level). Just to clarify for the record, User:205.217.105.2 and this IP are the same user. 24.54.208.177 00:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Comment on suggested merger

• This company is part of the history of this form of matching, but, because it was acquired, it's no longer a player (at least in its own name). Therefore, the current treatment in Anonymous matching is appropriate for that article: just a few lines about the company's role. The detailed information about the history of this particular company would be clutter in that article. It should be kept as a separate article, here, so that the information isn't lost. JamesMLane 00:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)