Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegas Partner Lounge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Citations are improved but remain weak. The one award is difficult to quantify as to its importance, particularly since "coveted" appears to be a required adjective most of the time in relation to it whenever it is referenced, as in "the coveted Casinomeister award". Pigman☿ 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Partner Lounge

procedural nomination ~ version at time of AFD nomination Edit-revert-edit-revert-edit PROD seesaw (not quite a war) ends here. Original PROD nominator stated: "Unreferenced company article; fails WP:CORP". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, and reads Promotional. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - I was the one who prodded it, therefore I cannot but agree with the nomination above. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced article and google news archive search produces only press releases. Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable online casino company. The article needs cleanup maybe, but deletion isn't necessary. (Promotional language can be edited, for example.) Rray (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calling the article unreferenced is excessively nitpicky. A reference mentioned in the article was in the external links, which is pretty common. I moved it to the refeence section and cleaned it up. As a private company CORP is always problematic. The single article is for a company with multiple websites. The main site plainly meets WP:WEB, and so would most of the subsidiary websites that this company owns. Having the one article keeps from multiple, thinner, articles about basically the same thing. This article prevents content forking, is not (now) written as an advertisement, and covers a multi-million dollar company whose subsidiaries are more generally known than the parent. 2005 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ghits linked by Addhoc are websites owned by Vegas Partner Lounge, so fails as independent sources. That the company exists is not in doubt, but notability has not been asserted or proved. The article fails WP:ORG. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The websites linking to it are not owned by the company! Some are of course as they own a network of properties, as the article highlights. But beyond that it obviously has hundreds of independant sources, as does it's various sites like here, here, etc. The company itself, especially in conjunction with it's subsidiary companies plainly meets WP:ORG in terms of volume of coverage. There can't be any doubt about that, but in terms of very reliable sources there are less, but there are enough to justify an article. In no way is this objectively a trivial or genuinely non-notable company. 2005 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be more convinced by evidence of the independent sources. It seems odd to provide evidence to confirm my view, and yet not provide evidence to support the article! Saying there are independent sources, yet not providing evidence of them is not a convincing argument. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least click the links. You might have even done some diligence yourself before commenting on an Afd at all. Pretending something isn't so without even looking isn't helpful. The first search results alone brings up 126,000 results. Obviously many are trivial, and some are on the associated sites, but the widespread referencing of the parent site or its subsidiaries is not in doubt. 2005 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a Google search for "Vegas Partner Lounge", I find coverage on casinocity.com and on casinomeister.com. Looking deeper into the results I see that they're approved by eCOGRA. These are all indicators of notability. Being unreferenced isn't a valid deletion reason anyway. It has to be impossible to find references before deletion is appropriate, and that's clearly not the case here. Rray (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original nominator should withdraw the nomination. Afd's should only occur when someone wants to take the responsibility to nominate something for deletion, and state reasons for such. There are none and as such this is a nuisance nomination. It should be speedy closed and if someone wants to advocate an AFD they can. 2005 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If a PROD notice is removed, then re-instated in a non-trivial manner (i.e. not as a response to vandalism), that is an invitation to bring something to AFD as it indicates controversy over the deletion. What you're suggesting is that there shouldn't be any procedural nominations to AFD. If that is your point, I'd suggest your taking it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as a complaint against the type nominations allowed right now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prod was reattached while reverting a change that addresed the prod! And no, an addition, subtraction and readding of a prod does not mean an AFD should occur. There is no such thing as a procedural nomination. Please only nominate articles for deletion that YOU think should be deleted. There is nothing to discuss here. Speedy close is the only appropriate action. If someone wants to state a case for an afd, they can do so. If you want to establish something called a procedural nomination, then you need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Till then, please don't make nominations without justifying them with your own point of view, as the deletion page requires: Reason the page should be deleted. 2005 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will not be taking your advice, but thank you for your opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the risk of tipping off further controversy, the references provided are really not independent enough to count as reliable sources in this case. The individual properties held by this company may be notable, but the holding company itself does not appear to be. Lankiveil (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- To prevent content forking previous AFD's decided to make one article for the parent company of these various online gambling sites, rather than in this case about a half dozen articles. So it's no solution to delete this one and create six similar articles for sub-entities that all easily meet WP:WEB. It is a serious Wikipedia problem that there is no clear way to deal with inconsistencies, but it's obviously silly to make six articles for this one company, while only one for similar (and even larger) companies like Cassava Enterprises. The holding company is plainly notable as the owner of each individual property; and articles on the individual properties would be substantial content forks since they would all say similar things to "they are owned by Vegas Partner Lounge, which is..." So deleting this as suggested above makes no sense in terms of the encyclopedia's consistency. 2005 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.