Talk:Parlay Entertainment

POV disputed
This page reads like an ad to me. I don't see that it adds value to wikipedia. RainbowCrane 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything seems factual to me. What specific statements seem like advertising to you? Rray 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I scampered over to the NPOV Dispute policy page, and it's clear that in order to initiate a debate about an article's neutrality you need to specify which passages are not neutral and why they're not neutral. Saying that the entire page reads like an ad and that it doesn't add value to the Wikipedia isn't specific enough to initiate this debate. (From the guideline: "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.")


 * I'd suggest not adding the NPOV tag to an article unless you're willing to point out specifically which part of the article is not NPOV and why. The only thing I can see that might be considered promotional is Parlay's "claim" that they invented online bingo software.Rray 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of any comment besides the one sentence, I removed the tag, especially since the company is clearly notable. 2005 03:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)