Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo

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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Yes, it was a mighty battle, the Deletes had the advantage, but the Keeps came back. </melodrama>. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DoYouDo

Not notable. Delete. -

• Keep. DoYouDo's idea is quite interesting and notable. 24.54.208.177 07:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (this IP address is the same as the author of the article —Wahoofive (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete. nn spam --RoySmith 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please explain how it falls within the criteria of
    Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines. Since the article simply provides information, rather than advertising, I believe it is not spam. And since it meets notability criterion #1, I believe it also counts as notable. But, even if DoYouDo does not merit a separate article, perhaps it could be merged and redirected to Spark Networks, which owns DoYouDo, Inc. 205.217.105.2 16:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • • Seems to be the same user as
        User:Tparker393/DoYouDo —Wahoofive (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Not the same user, although we have been working in close concert. 205.217.105.2 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• Comment. See [1]. --cesarb 18:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Delete. Non-Notable by google test standards. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And let's keep it that way. User:205.217.105.2 20:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Bugs Bunny. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete Just crap. Jwissick 23:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• Delete; spam. Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, with prejudice when it starts showing up again in other places. Nandesuka 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply
        ]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply
            ]
            • 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)[reply]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep, how is this spam? ··gracefool |☺ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --fvw* 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This user is quite active within a very small scope. I find it very hard to continue to
  brenneman^(t)(c) 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I know this is not particularly germane to the AfD discussion, but you might consider registering a real user name. This will make it easier for people to communicate with you, and be less confusing all around. Also (whether it is justified or not), people tend to give less weight to comments left by anonymous users. --RoySmith 00:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, well, creating an account works well in the long run, but in the short run, it looks like a
        sockpuppet. Moreover, I keep telling myself, "I'm done with this wiki; let me just make this one last edit" but then I end up posting more stuff, yet never starting an account. So that explains the anon edits. True, I did change my mind a couple times about the notability of my own article, but that was because I was doing research and learning more information. Some new info I gathered made it look non-notable, and then further info made it look notable again. So that (partially) explains why I changed my vote. The other thing was that I changed my mind about certain comments, and also got offended at people calling my article "spam" and "just crap," and responding to my comments with what I regarded as ad hominem attacks, so I decided to remove those comments. So that explains the removed comments. I guess when people see unusual behavior, they tend to assume the worst, but in this case it was just eccentricity and ambivalence. There is a little more to it, but you probably would find those other aspects of the situation incredible. 24.54.208.177 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Ah, I'll tell you anyway, to clear the waters. My name is Nathan Larson and I have been a Wikipedian since around October 2004, and written numerous articles, including jujyfruits, baylisascaris, Piedmont Geriatric Hospital, and four featured articles. For a long time, I was toying with the idea for an anonymous matching system, and a few weeks ago, I finally decided it was time to implement it, and went about looking to patent it. In the course of my search, I stumbled across DoYouDo's patent, which was startlingly identical to my idea. Defeated, I gave up but decided to use the information I had gathered to write a Wikipedia article, so at least my research work would benefit the public. Then my article was put up for deletion and I naturally voted "Keep," because I found the idea intriguing. Around that time, I was gathering information (e.g. looking at the internet archive of the failed website DoYOU2.com) that made the company seem less notable; moreover, in the course of my research for the article, I exchanged emails with Gil Sudai, who offered to help me get in touch with the owners of the patent and arrange to purchase it. In an effort to reduce publicity that might bid up the price, I changed my vote to "Delete." However, I then found out that eCRUSH, having introduced their own version of Sudai's system in February 1999, which was prior to the September 1999 registration of the patent, had been grandfathered in and therefore was able to run their competing (and dominant in the market) system without licensing the patent. That made the patent seem less attractive to me, and at the same time, I also realized that eCRUSH's success made the system DoYouDo implemented seem more notable, because it had been tried by another company successfully and thus wasn't just an idea that never caught on. So, I had a mix of selfish and unselfish motives, but the end result was the same, and that's how we got where we are. 24.54.208.177 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated earlier, the editor's removal of earlier comments have made this discussion page hard to read, and have also downplayed his earlier zeal, which really did make this seem like an SEO/advertising push. I agree with Brenneman that with all of his antics going on here (he first protested the deletion, then came back and said that the article should be deleted [5], and then removed all of his comments, and is again pushing to keep or merge the article), it's beyond the regular assumption of Good Faith. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those deleted comments are now back by popular demand. 24.54.208.177 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, it doesn't matter much even if it is deleted. The information contained therein will be preserved indefinitely in the history page of anonymous matching, which users can access by means of this link: [6]. This ensures that the information will always be available to users who need it. Only a developer can remove that entry from the history page, and to do so would violate the GFDL, which requires that the history remain intact. You will have to AFD anonymous matching if you want to get rid of it. 24.54.208.177 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment will be noted at
    brenneman^(t)(c) 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Nope. Doesn't need a developer. In fact, I've just removed it, since it is plain it was put there just to circumvent this AfD. --
    khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep There is a precedent for promotional articles -- eg
  red bull. One more will not hurt. Joaquin Murietta 07:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]
  • Except that article was created by and only edited by the same user.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So what? The issue isn't assessing any particular user's conduct. The issue is what arrangement of the information will best serve the reader. For detailed background on a particular pioneering company in this field, the choices are: put it in an article about the company (linked to from the article about the field and from the article about the company that acquired the pioneer); include it in one of those other articles, where it would be clutter; or suppress the information entirely. I consider the first option to be the most useful for our readers. JamesMLane 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Except that: A) It's hardly "pioneering" as the idea already existed and was being used. Getting a patent doesn't make you a pioneer. and B) It's not a "company" in any sense outside the most legalistic, and never was. Did ever have any employees? Did it ever have an office? Did anyone ever sit in a DoYouDo cubicle and sob silently at the utter mundane hell of their existance?
    
    brenneman^(t)(c) 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The extent of cubicle sobbing and other such information can be included in the article. The issue for AfD isn't how much moral credit the corporation deserves as a pioneer, but whether it's notable enough that readers might want to know more about it. From that point of view, the issuance of a patent is relevant. JamesMLane 08:53, 30 September 2005 (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 an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.