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, that 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)

I agree and were it not for the controversy over the company inventing ghost accounts, I seriously doubt whether the company would be notable. Maybe an AfD might be in order?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, please note that we mostly don't care about what the domain names actually are; "obscene" and "offensive" are not part of this issue. WP:NOTCENSORED. There have been plenty of lively debates about text and images of genitals, sexual acts, BDSM, with and without LGBT elements, and you can fairly easily find quite explicit text and images related to those subjects within Wikipedia. The results of the debates are almost always based on whether it is beneficial to an encyclopaedia article or not. The only exceptions to that would be if it would actually be illegal under U.S. law (since WP:WMF is based there). The issue here is entirely around what should be in a good encyclopaedia article, and WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKSPAM, and related policies and guidelines. Murph9000 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)