User talk:Vgamerz

Speedy deletion nomination of Caribbean hideaway
Hello Vgamerz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Caribbean hideaway for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Stephreef (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management.
 * you gave some references, but none met the criteria of independent third-party sources as defined above
 * I can't see any information that shows that the notability criteria have been met, such as sales figures, verified downloads or awards. You basically describe the game and mention one review, which appears to be one person's opinion
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. In fairness, most of your text is neutral, but cherry-picking a single review looks promotional. In any case, notability doesn't derive from someone liking your game
 * it's all about what the company organisation does, little about the company itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits.
 * Your edits indicate that you have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your game is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
 * If you work directly or indirectly for the company, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the games company you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

You basically have more of a problem with notability than advertising, and you must declare any COI Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

More
Just for further clarification Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason you appear to have a conflict of interest are that the only articles you edited are those for the game and its parent company, nothing do with removing the SD tags. However, if you say you have no connection, I'll assume good faith
 * whatever you think about the worthiness of your article, the speedy deletion tag makes it clear that you must leave it to an admin to decide. Even if you missed that, you were directly warned about your actions three times
 * I think you misunderstood my comments regarding notability and advertising. First, if an article is deleted under one criterion, it does not mean it could not have been deleted under another. What I meant is that the spam problem came from the use of a cherry-picked review, and the notability issue came from lack of evidence of how it met the video game criteria and absence of proper third party references. Apologies for not making that clearer