Deletion of Adam4Adam

Comment: for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I'm using the main notability guideline, which states "A topic is '''notable''' if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable and Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject itself and each other."  The  guidelines didn't seem as appropriate as they state "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", and most of the sources make little reference to the content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails .  I've looked at every one of the sources (bar the NYT which is members only) and aside from the FlavaMen review (which is questionable) not one of the sources has Adam4Adam as the subject of the article, mostly they are just brief mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: sources ''are'' trivial; site doesn't meet /
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB)

Comment: WP:V|Verifiable sources list Adam4Adam as the #2 gay dating site in the world (or at least the English-speaking world) in Sept 2005 and as the #3 such site in December 2006.  Is there no guideline anywhere that suggests a website, book, company, toy, device, whatever that appears on published lists as one of the most-used in the world has |notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)