Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortune Lounge Group


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group
Blatant spam/advertising for said company.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It looks like significant chunks of the article might be copyvio, but given the name of the author, it may not be an issue. The group seems relatively notable, but the article in this state is unacceptable. Delete unless someone wants to totally rewrite it and turn it into something other than a long advertisement. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-12-02 07:37:53Z
 * Delete. Adding the userpage of the user that created the page to Miscellany for deletion. Peyna 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per 28,700 google hits. Makes huge assertions of notoriety, and they all seem to be backed up. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Zordrac, you need to take a look at it, as no one is saying "no verification." Instead, the chief grounds for deletion is that it's advertising.  Further, it looks like a copy and paste of a promotional brochure.  Further, even if it weren't advertising, we would have the question of whether this is notable among websites.  The online casinos are geniuses at getting links.  It's what they do.  In fact, some have had the habit of automatically downloading client software on people who click their banner ads.  This is an ad.  Geogre 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So rewrite it. Simple.  I have argued this point elsewhere.  An article should be kept/deleted based on its topic, not on its contents as they stand right now.  There are lots of reasons for this, which I have stated elsewhere.  Fundamentally, look at Eventualism for the rationale.  IMO your argument suggests a keep vote. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to get into a debate on wikiphilosophy here, but am compelled to justify my nomination in light of your comment: I think I would be less inclined to vote Delete if there was some content worth salvaging. If the article could be pared down to the bare information, sans all the advertising cruft, then by all means, let's do it. But I personally see no notable information in the current version worth keeping, and have insufficient knowledge of, or interest in the subject matter to perform a rewrite. So if choosing between leaving it for possibly weeks (months?) before a knowledgeable editor performs a rewrite, or deleting it now and letting a knowledgeable editor recreate it in weeks/months, I find I much prefer the latter. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a comment all written up that started almost identically, but I aborted it, since I was worried this wasn't the place for it. Following your lead, though, I'll point out that I think if an article like this is kept, it is unlikely to ever be rewritten. I doubt many people are willing to totally rewrite an article with over 10kB of text, and this article definitely needs to be totally rewritten. However, in the spirit of, well, putting my money where my mouth is, don't be surprised if I take an axe to the text if it's kept. ;) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-12-03 04:58:49Z
 * Yeah, I've done that a couple of times. I figure that if I believe enough that the topic is worth keeping then I should be willing to fix it. The first article I nominated for deletion got fixed up by another editor and kept, and I took that lesson to heart. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, in answer to the way above: It is advertising, and, to restate what was ignored, if it were not advertising (i.e. if all the rewriting took place), it would still be a website, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. The usual standards of assessing web pages include number of mentions on Google, but porn and gambling sites will screw that right up, as they aggressively (and illegally, betimes) elevate their hit counts.  Therefore delete from all of the above (current status = ad; perfect status = web guide; web value unverifiable due to the business model).  Sheesh. Geogre 14:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete advertising Avalon 21:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant ad. Moriori 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- verifiable - its in original namespace - if you don't like the ad, go ahead and rewrite it, until then users looking for them will find what we have instead of finding nothing at all-- --(U | T | C) 09:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We have updated our article to at least define what the online casino group is about and hope this will suffice. PLz Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as blatant spam. 69.236.184.108 08:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. Chick Bowen 00:04, 8 December 2005 (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.