Talk:Friends Reunited

message: Friends reunited was proposed for deletion. What follows is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This part of the page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page (see above) rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
commercial advertising spam. the masses have spoken. Alkivar 02:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Classmates.com in the USA which is almost identical in function, its been speedy deleted twice. Alkivar 05:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. How about merging it into a new general article about "Internet Contact & Reunion Organisations"? These are definitely a new phenomenon worthy of an encyclopedia entry Adambisset 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Friends Reunited is a cultural phenomenon. It's notable on its own. It was the first of these sites and it's enormously popular in the UK. There wouldn't be a person who didn't know of it, the papers are full of stories of reunited lovers who leave their current partners etc.Dr Zen 23:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Au Contraire! Classmates.com was started in 1995! It was the first and remains the largest such schoolmate reunion site. Alkivar 01:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: :Image:Friends Reunited.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Friends Reunited.jpg

message: We really need some discussion about the fact that friendsreunited has been  totally overtaken by web 2.0 social networking sites like facebook. Their active membership has dropped drastically. Anyone have any figures? Little Professor (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Web 2.0

message: Currently the article states in different sections that ITV paid £120 million and £175 million - at least one of those figures must be wrong... 217.113.170.97 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price Paid by ITV? 

message: I'm not sure how to mark a subject as out of date.  I can't comment on much of the content, but much is referred to in the present tense (ITV ownership, for example) which should now be past tense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.190.190 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to mark "out of date" as the content you refer to is clearly in the history section, it only need a minor edit. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friends Reunited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207111807/http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/624129/friends-reunited-appeals-animal-lovers-tv-ad-push/ to http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/624129/friends-reunited-appeals-animal-lovers-tv-ad-push/
*Added  tag to http://www.financeweek.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=6024&d=317&h=24&f=254
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think there must of been at least four people involved in setting up FriendsReunited as I have heard there was a legal dispute over ownership in which 2 couples both claimed ownership and based their claims on their involvement in setting it up. One couple claimed to have set it up as a website: The other couple claimed to have set it up as a company. A judge made a ruling about which lead to ownership 86.178.157.248 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least 4 were involved in setting up FriendsReunited 

message: Or Holy Cross primary school 😂 fancy a reunion?? 
I live in Derbyshire now but happy to travel to Devon. 
I was called Mary Nally back in the day 😀 
07515640378  call me if you want a reunion 🤗 xx 86.3.165.234 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plymouth friends from Bishop Vaughan 1974/1975/1976