Talk:Global Personals

Pseudo profiles

I've added a section regarding the Channel 4 News exposé of the company's use of fake profiles: as this is of widespread public interest and was covered in some detail at the time, it seems reasonable that it is incorporated into the article. Similarly, I've removed the section entitled "Affiliates program" - this reads as a puff-piece for the business, rather than an unbiased assessment of interest to the wider public. I'll be happy to discuss either of these on this talk page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

List of partner sites

The list of partner sites seems entirely unnecessary to me, and not something which belongs in an encyclopaedia. The business model can be adequately explained through the prose, without any need to list individual partner sites. Listing them feels very much like WP:LINKSPAM to me. WP:NOTDIR, and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL also apply. People wanting to find out more about the partners can do so through the official site, which is already linked. We would certainly not permit a long list of sites as simple external links, and the same applies to creating those links as citations (see also WP:CITESPAM). Exceptionally, a specific partner site which has individual WP:NOTABILITY might qualify for discussion (i.e. in prose). Murph9000 (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Justthefacts222: Please explain why what is nothing more than a bare list of URLs is beneficial to the article. How does it help to explain the business model? Why can it not be done through proper use of prose and without a large list of link spam?

I stand by my previous assertion, than it is basically just promotional WP:LINKSPAM, and does not belong anywhere in an encyclopaedia article about a company.

Murph9000 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I read this the same way. The edit warring from a WP:SPA suggests there's a conflict of interest and a promotional intent. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• And the problem is compounded if the partner sites are not themselves notable, i.e., no stand alone Wikipedia articles. Makes it look all the more spammy. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)