Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Gaming

From 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 Merge & Redirect into Christchurch Casino. Glen 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiwi Gaming

Violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising Richard 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion with User:RRay below, I am now in favor of redirecting this article to Christchurch Casino, the parent company of the Kiwi Gaming website. That article is itself a stub but, based on a Google search of "Christchurch Casino", I believe that there is enough material to expand the article to meet Wikipedia quality standards. I invite all those who "voted" to delete the article to re-consider their decision and change their "votes" to redirect. --Richard 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - created by yet another one who helpfully incorporates the company name into his logon id so that we can all be absolutely sure that it's spam. BTLizard 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I read up to the word "trusted" and then I was pretty sure it was spam. Recury 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. Vectro 03:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is poorly written, but the subject is notable. The article should be edited and brought into line with other articles about online gambling websites, not deleted. Rray 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Fair enough. Do the editing and I'll change my vote. Or, wait for the AFD to complete and recreate the article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've edited it. It's not perfect yet, but it's not an advertisement anymore either. Rray 00:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - Per Richard's suggestion above. Rray 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite is an improvement but it still violates Wikipedia is not a link farm. An adequate article in my opinion would be one that discusses the company's history, its officers, annual revenue, profit, etc. Otherwise, the article still looks like its more intended to attract business than it is intended to describe the business. Also, even if the preceding information were provided, the company would still have to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability of companies. I suspect the ultimate solution is to have an article on the parent company, Christchurch Casino, with Kiwi Gaming as a section within that article. --Richard 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there's only one external link, I hardly think it violates Wikipedia is not a link farm. But your ultimate solution sounds reasonable - I'll work on it.Rray 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The critical piece, as I see it, is having the article reference publications which mention the company without being just a regurgitation of a press release or a trade publication interview with the company. In other words, it must be a "real" news article and not just some sycophantic trade journal article which is a PR promotion disguised as a news article. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) provides the details.
As for the current version of the article "having only one external link"... please... don't insult my intelligence and I won't insult yours.
--Richard 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I have no idea how I might have insulted your intelligence, but I'm sure sorry if you feel that way. Rray 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I should have assumed good faith. The bulk of the article remains a list of Internet sites which, while they are not formatted as clickable URLs and are not placed in the External Links section, are still nothing more than a list of external websites. Moreover, the formatting is such that the listing of these websites takes up a prominent part of the article. It wouldn't be so bad if the list of websites was 5-10% of the article and provided as a simple list separated by commas. Putting them in bullet points with section titles for each grouping causes them to dominate the article. Thus, despite Torimadi's comment below, the article still looks to me like a solicitation for people to visit the gambling sites. I'm not familiar with other articles on Internet gambling in Wikipedia but, if they are all like this one, they are all candidates for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and make the article conform to the requirements therein.
Actually, since they have a parent company in Christchurch Casinos, this should be redirected and added as a subcategory of that article, like you suggested earlier. That would be consistent with how other gambling companies are handled. Rray 21:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current version of the page doesn't seem promotional at all to me, and isn't it better for the end user to provide a link to the official site? That being said, the mention of an article for the parent company with the the Kiwi page as a sub sounds reasonable as well, but it should still contain the official site link in my opinion. Torimadi 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This should be treated linke all similar companies and articles. An article about the parent company should be created, and this redirected to it, with all the useful info incorporated in the parent of course. If nobody beats me to it, I'll make a Christchurch Casino article. 2005 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The new article looks great. I think we should move forward with the redirect. Rray 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoa there, hoss. Slow down. I'm glad that we could forge a compromise between the two of us but we can't just slough off the opinions of the other editors who have chimed in on this discussion. For a fuller explanation, see this conversation on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). What we need to do now is get enough of the "delete" votes to switch to "redirect". I have started the process by expressing my change of opinion immediately below the nomination. You can help by contacting (OK, spamming) each of the "delete" votes and asking them to reconsider their vote. --Richard 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably should take your own advice. First, you inappropriately put up an article for afd that should have been prodded instead. An article did not belong under this name since that is not how any other similar articles are done. Second, you seem to have not assumed anything like good faith a couple times, the second time saying "Whoa there, hoss. Slow down" when Rray simply said to move ahead with the redirect. I'd suggest being a little more deliberate, especially before starting premature things like this. 2005 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... you're mixing together a bunch of things that are not necessarily related. I will address them individually though not necessarily in order.
First, as far as I can tell, the choice between PROD and AFD is the nominator's call. If the nominator thinks that it is unlikely that the PROD will be objected to, he can PROD the article in order to shorten the process required for deletion. I admit that I chose AFD as the conservative route since I'm not particularly experienced in CSD and PROD. I can understand being criticized for SPEEDY'ing an article that didn't meet the criteria. I didn't think this article met the criteria for speedy deletion although, on reflection, it was pretty close to meeting "No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere". I didn't think the article was likely to be PROD-worthy because, if nothing else, I expected the author of the article to object. Frankly, I just can't make any sense out of your criticism here. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think I should have done instead of nominating this article for AFD.
Second, I reject any suggestion that AFD'ing this article was "premature". Perhaps you meant something else. I welcome an elucidation of your meaning.
Third, as far as my failing to Assume Good Faith, I really thought that RRay could understand what I meant when I characterized his article as still violating "WP is not a link farm". I didn't think I had to spell it out for him. Turns out I was wrong so I apologized. BTW, in my humble opinion, the new Christchurch Casino article still violates "WP is not a link farm" and "WP is not hosting service for advertisements and promtotions" as it stands but has the potential to become a real article if someone will put real effort into expanding it.
Given the repeated failure to add any substantive encyclopedic information about Kiwi Gaming OR Christchurch Casino into either article, I find it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. I have Googled Christchurch Casino so I know that there is some encyclopedic material out there on the Net. Presumably there is more available from sources that are not on the Net e.g. number of employees, annual revenue, whether it is the only casino in Christchurch, the largest or just one among many. What is the nature of the corporation? (Private or public) Who owns it? Who are the management? Etc., etc. So why hasn't that material been added? The failure to address these issues suggests an assumption that promotion of the online gambling websites is the primary agenda here. I have turned unacceptable articles into acceptable articles in far less time than has been elapsed since this article was nominated for AFD. Just today, I have done this with respect to the Poverty in India article. If you really believe that this material is encyclopedic then it is incumbent on you to raise the quality of the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I considered doing it but I figured there are enough "Keep" votes here to share the work.
The "I won't insult your intelligence" bit was borderline uncivil and I apologize for that. I believe I provided adequate links for RRay to acquaint himself with Wikipedia policy. Skirting around the "not a link farm" policy by claiming "only one external link" is asking a bit much.
Fourth, the "Whoa there, hoss" may have been a bit over-familiar and jocular but the point remains that there are procedural issues that need to be dealt with regarding the Redirect before we could "move ahead with the Redirect". RRay didn't hint that he was aware of these issues and I frankly wanted to check on my understanding before committing to a particular stance here. So I did just that over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
--Richard 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I didn't think that anyone was going to move ahead with the redirect without discussing it (and not just on my say-so.). I was just expressing my opinion about what we should do next at this point. Sorry if that wasn't clear; I have no problem with folks discussing this first. Rray 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sorry but this article is large enough to stand on its own. Do not redirect. Merging the two seems to be the wrong way to go. While I may not like online casino articles, this one is no different then many of the others that we already have. Vegaswikian 06:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Totally false. There is no reason to make this article an exception to the standard way every single other similar company has articles. There are zero articles like this so this article would be redirected as a normal course of editing since there is no reason to treat it differently than other articles, and of course plenty of reasons to treat it the same. 2005 06:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Christchurch Casino on the basis that this is a product or service of Christchurch Casino. Keep it tagged for a beef up of the encyclopedic content. Retain the categorization; seems to fit in rather well amongst the rest of the category if strengthened. Although Wikipedia is NOT a directory and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, it is an encyclopedia which has the goal of providing material appropriate to support original research by others. This material fits that niche. Although it by itself is borderline noteworthy at best, it is important to provide a reasonably comprehensive set of articles to support the core article of online gambling; if a researcher is researching that topic, there is encyclopedic value in having a wide international array of examples; I see no other Kiwi examples. Williamborg (Bill) 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
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.