Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flirtomatic
I appreciate the authors' contention that this article meets , but fail to see how we can write a |verifiable |neutral point of view article about a topic with no coverage in secondary sources.  We can't, and are left with an article that is uncited promotional material and/or |original research by editors with an obvious |conflict of interest.    I think in this case there is an inconsistency between the aforementioned principles of +++ and , and the first four principles should trump.  Of course, if this has been the subject of nontrivial articles in reliable sources, then by all means keep, but I don't see those citations in the article
— User:71, 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:COI||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:COI||WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)