This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forever (website) article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pittsburgh and its
metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
I currently work for this company. It's small enough that we don't have a dedicated digital media person. What sort of changes are you looking for? -
Fuzzy (
talk) 13:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus to for the proposed merge.
DarjeelingTea (
talk) 10:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As there is nothing to write about this one independently. Merging can be good option as Page for founder is already there.
Light2021 (
talk) 15:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge -- one article would be sufficient.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge per
my rewrite. The merge nominator is incorrect that "there is nothing to write about this one independently". A merge to
Glen Meakem would be
undue weight. There is sufficient material for a standalone article.
Cunard (
talk) 11:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose You fail to delete an article, you don't immediately try again with a merge which would effectively have the same result. Anyway, ample information in the company article on its own, and ample references for that information.
DreamFocus 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Article has been rewritten, and wouldn't be improved with a merge.
Unscintillating (
talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge given the AfD clearly stated the concerns and there was sufficient basis to show nothing satisfied out policies; simply because it wasn't deleted is not a defense, exactly how anything here can be reconsidered for deletion and subsequently deleted, the new improvements aren't outweighing the still existing concerns. With a consensus to merge, this can counter any later attempts at advertising. As it is, this subject is mentioned as a basic at the founder's article. This current Forever.com article, as it is, largely outweighs any benefits, because the largest sections it has, are literally their advertised "Products and services" section thus violating WP:NOT, our policy alone.
SwisterTwistertalk 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Clear concerns? The first nomination read, "There is nothing significant about the organization or website here." What is "nothing significant" supposed to mean other than "I don't like it"? The next nomination started, "There are [sic] no improvement from last AfD." This is right out of WP:ATA's
WP:IMPATIENT, which says, "Remember that there is no deadline." The nomination goes on to call for a speedy delete without identifying any speedy delete criteria. The only concerns nominations like this generate are for the quality of AfD nominations.
Unscintillating (
talk) 19:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose: Plain & simple: There are enough sources and contents in the article to justify a standalone piece.
Anup[Talk] 06:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose Per several previous editors, this is an attempt to make a back run around the AfD process. OhNoitsJamieTalk
Oppose As end-around to the deletion discussion and as there are
WP:RS to support independent notability of this site.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I currently work for Forever as a developer. While I am not an authoritative source, I figure this at least lets people know that there are real people here building a real product. :) I also let our publicity guy know about the AfD a while back. I think he fixed things up a bit to make it more informative. -
Fuzzy (
talk) 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Notability
Two AfDs closed as No consensus (not as Keep). It's appropriate to retain the tag until consensus changes.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply