Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Online
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertising for online casino company; creator originally spammed links to gambling sites to other WP articles; when I removed them, he posted this [1] on my talkpage, proposing that Wikipedia become a "business partner" of his company. NawlinWiki 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Given User:2005's cleanup of the article, and given that the company seems to meet WP:CORP, I am willing to withdraw the AFD nomination. I did not, however, "create an inappropriate AFD" -- when I created the AFD, the article was the older, spammy version created by the "looney affiliate". There's nothing wrong or uncommon about a result of an AFD being an improved article that no longer needs to be deleted. NawlinWiki 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you did not put the afd on the older/spammy article, which is the reason for the response. You put a prod on the crap article, but that was completely removed and a full, useful article put in its place, which only then had the afd inappropriately added, with the obsolete comment about the nutjob writing in your user talk. I suspect that you added the afd when you saw the prod wasn't there, but didn't read the new article. In any case though, the first one was useless but what is there now is just a normal, referenced article about a major business. 2005 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Given User:2005's cleanup of the article, and given that the company seems to meet WP:CORP, I am willing to withdraw the AFD nomination. I did not, however, "create an inappropriate AFD" -- when I created the AFD, the article was the older, spammy version created by the "looney affiliate". There's nothing wrong or uncommon about a result of an AFD being an improved article that no longer needs to be deleted. NawlinWiki 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Some more output from the spam factory Martinp23 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - spam -- Whpq 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Spamless article about major publicly traded company. Please in the future don't create inappropriate Afd's about versions of articles that no longer exist. 2005 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This article is spam, and I would advise people to read the link to Nawlinwiki's talk page where the company asked to become a 'partner' of wikipedia. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The COMPANY didn't ask to "partner" with the Wikipedia. C'mon now, lets not be ridiculous. Regardless of what some looney affiliate did, an afd is about the article in place, not one that doesn't exist. I strongly suggest you actually read the article instead of some nonsense on a talk page. 2005 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The company is notable by virtue of being publicly traded and a major player in the online gaming industry. What the user posted on someone's talk page is irrelevant to whether or not the article in question is spam; this should be a discussion of the merits of the article and whether or not the subject is notable, not whether or not the person who originally drafted the article had bad intentions. (Also, comments like "spam" with no other input aren't really helpful here.) Rray 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Rray --Edgelord 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I remain unconvinced that the corporation is notable enough to merit an article. Being listed on the London Stock Exchange may not meet WP:CORP, since that exchange also has an "alternative" listing freed from many regulatory requirements, and the policy requires being included on a major index for automatic listing. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The company's public status is not the only reason for its notability. The company is a major player in the online gaming industry as well. The two combined make the article notable enough to keep. Their total net revenue for Q1 of 2006 was $21.1 million according to Sharecast. They're also extensively covered by Casino City, which is a major player in online gaming new coverage. Rray 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed on a stock exchange is not a notability criterion. Neither is having a revenue over some arbitrary threshold. The criteria for companies and corporations are laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Empire Online has been the subject of articles in Financial Times and Card Player. In the context of the business world, Financial Times is non-trivial, and in the context of the gambling industry, Card Player is non-trivial. Rray 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. But WP:CORP says nothing about the publisher. It is the work that must be non-trivial. A simple offhand one-sentence mention as an aside in Financial Times does not qualify. But a full-length feature article on the company does. Please cite your sources so that other editors can see what articles you are actually talking about. Uncle G 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the person who originally nominated this article for deletion has withdrawn that nomination for deletion, I think this is unnecessary at this point. (There's considerable support for keeping this article from some of the Wikipedians here who are familiar with the online gaming industry too.) The article itself has multiple citations and footnotes now anyway. Rray 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. But WP:CORP says nothing about the publisher. It is the work that must be non-trivial. A simple offhand one-sentence mention as an aside in Financial Times does not qualify. But a full-length feature article on the company does. Please cite your sources so that other editors can see what articles you are actually talking about. Uncle G 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Empire Online has been the subject of articles in Financial Times and Card Player. In the context of the business world, Financial Times is non-trivial, and in the context of the gambling industry, Card Player is non-trivial. Rray 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed on a stock exchange is not a notability criterion. Neither is having a revenue over some arbitrary threshold. The criteria for companies and corporations are laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The company's public status is not the only reason for its notability. The company is a major player in the online gaming industry as well. The two combined make the article notable enough to keep. Their total net revenue for Q1 of 2006 was $21.1 million according to Sharecast. They're also extensively covered by Casino City, which is a major player in online gaming new coverage. Rray 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rray and 2005. Essexmutant 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per 2005, Rray, Edgelord, and Essexmutant; and the nominator (NawlinWiki) response above. --HResearcher 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:CORP, but reads like an ad. Nickieee 07:35, 20 August 2006 (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.