Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stinger Report (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Consensus by editors who do not have a conflict of interest about the subject is that this is not a notable publication. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Stinger Report
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article written like a puff piece; most of the sources are either just text from the report (not information about the report itself) or interviews with the founder. None of them are sufficient to establish notability. Veinor (talk to me) 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As the author of this page I do take offense to the claim of it being a 'puff piece'. I have taken information from our own sources - but also from trade websites (1up, SPONG, Insidecoinop, etc) that use the report so giving information of the work - making it available to others. I included the interview with the founder as it describes the market and the formation of the Stinger - if this is felt to be puff then it will be removed. What should be kept in the piece to full fill the Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has been gone over again looking for any claims and repetition and edited. I need to know what more can be done as I seem to find that this page is like others and not unusual? Stingerreport (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A general rephrasing of a lot of the article, for starters. Compare the first few sentences to the introductory paragraphs of, for example, Time magazine's article. Time's article has much more neutral, encyclopedic phrasing, whereas the one on The Stinger Report reads more like something you'd find on an "About Us" page, if you get what I mean. Same goes for the 'description' section. It's not something I can really put into words, but it's a general 'non-encyclopedic' feeling I get from it, like the difference between reading a newspaper article and one of those big full-page advertisements that looks like an article and has 'advertisement' in fine print on the bottom.
 * As for the references, here's my evaluation of them one by one: the Arcade Renaissance links are pretty short and doesn't really say anything about Stinger per se, it just passes on information. It'd be like if we used Microsoft press releases to write the article on Microsoft. The first two spong.com references are both written by the founder, leading to a clear conflict of interest; to continue the Microsoft analogy, it'd be like if we wrote the Microsoft article using stuff that Bill Gates wrote. Not to mention the fact that, again, they don't even mention Stinger except for in the line at the very end. As for the interview, it might be useful for an article on arcade machines in general, but as with all the other ones, it doesn't provide any information about Stinger. And finally, the 1up article you linked to just has a quote from Kevin Williams; again, no information about Stinger.
 * The common thread here is a total lack of information about Stinger. For example, looking through all the references you provided, I couldn't even find out when Stinger was founded or when the first issue was published. Ultimately, this means that it'll be pretty much impossible to write a good, encyclopedic, neutral article about it. Veinor (talk to me) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't see solid notability and there is obviously a serious COI problem too. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Veinor for your information and observation. If I read this correctly you would need the description changed, and links found that are not written by Stinger, but are about Stinger for the reference. I propose to undertake this now and when completed need to know if this is in a direction that Wiki can support Stingerreport (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Page has been paired down of reference about the founder, the interviews, and uses references only talking about the Stinger Report and not written by the Stinger. Also details on the service operation and areas of coverage have been extended - with a re-write of the start and description as suggest. Please can you confirm this is more in keeping with Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this is, at the very least, a step in the right direction. The issue of the article's tone, while still somewhat advertorial, is not so bad that it would warrant deletion. However, the links are still, at least in my opinion, not enough to warrant inclusion. The insertcredit.com one seems to be mostly about the mustache in the picture, and the GameSetWatch link, while providing some information, appears again to be more meta-commentary on the issues the report covers rather than the report itself. And as I said before, the 1UP link doesn't really say much about the report. Veinor (talk to me) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nn. Fails WP:N as I see it i.e. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The references supplied are in the main from industry blogs. No mention of how many actual "subscribers" the e-Newsletter has? I hope they are subscribers or this amounts to email spam?--Sting au  Buzz Me...   23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Veinor for your support in helping us understand the requirements of what is quite a different process than we are use to. I would however request Sting that he dose not allude to The Stinger Report as "amounts to email spam", not matter meant as a question this can be taken the wrong way. In answer to your last points:


 * Writing Style / Tone - we were accused of being to 'advertorial', so the page has been nearly completely re-written and toned down


 * References - we were asked to change the quotes to reference about us, and not written by us. This has been down, with the insertcredit.com reference removed - replaced for a interview with our founder that dose explain the service and inclusion of a bio written about us for the GameDeveloper Conference session


 * Links - all links were re-drafted and presented as requested

You have to understand that we created this page as a number of Wiki pages / categories (Exergaming, Simulator Rides, Video Arcades etc.,) are using quotes, links or direct cuts from the Stinger Report and we felt a pages was needed - it would seem weird that they can use our material but we are unable to have a page.

Finally I am concerned that because of the size of the amusement media scene we are used widely by the trade and have a established track record, but are limited to references other than our work being used by everyone. I notice our industries largest trade journal (RePlay) has not been given a Wiki entry because it only has its reference. Is this the case for Wiki entry, as I feel uncomfortable to a possible exclusion of amusement trade? Stingerreport (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article claims that The Stinger Report is "a free subscription service with subscribers from around the world." How many actual "subscribers" are there?--Sting au  Buzz Me...   03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Stinger Report is circulated to over 10,000 subscribed and verified email addresses over six times a month. Subscribers can sign up at the web site or approach the Stinger directly. This is stated in the Page, though the circulation number is not as it was claimed that this would be 'puffing' us up if we reported our numbers?? Dose this address your question? 84.9.85.219 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that answers the question thank you. You have also left this message on my talk page. There is no need to message me there as I am now watching this AfD.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:COI, no apparent notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time that some one has just turned up made a sweeping statement, then asked for Deletion. We entered this Page after a number of Wiki sites used information or sources from The Stinger Report - I can not see how creating an entry is not going to promote ANY service or business. Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters? Is there a specific area of this page that could be changed that would not be seen as claimed promotion - or was this comment just made as a simple sweeping statement rather than a way to be constructive. We have done EVERYTHING asked to change alter or add to made this site suitable! Stingerreport (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again much appreciation in taking the time to supply us pointers in the coverage of the page in question; I have read the sources you pointed me towards and have this issues:


 * Notability – You will notice that the Stinger has been mentioned in a number of the references supplied. You will also notice that the coverage is used by media sources to cover the sector. I would say that the WP:Notable (People) is covered by the Stinger entry “worthy of notice” – we are using a ‘Primary source’ to support the inclusion and as a creative resource the Stinger falls into other aspects of this inclusion.


 * Reliable Sources – I have worked to only use three external links of ‘Self-Published’ sources, the rest are sources that have though the coverage worth of inclusion. I am uncomfortable with the way that Insidecoinop, 1up.com and SPONG.com were dismissed recently by one critic, though I notice that entry has ‘disappeared’.


 * Advice by subject – I have just noticed that in this reference that trade association and accreditation from ‘business and commerce’ can be used. I have not seen one comment in all the criticism to The Stinger Report entry on our association accreditation? Why is this ignored as a reliable reference?

I notice that some of the criticisms of the Stinger page have swapped, as if some who originally claimed that it was ‘puffing’ now say it is not informative. It also has been edited to address the requests, and I have even supplied subscription information to address a unfounded claim of being internet spam! I would be interested in what else I am going to have to supply – especially as I notice that equivalent pages of similar services (xx) seem to have gone unquestioned into the site? Stingerreport (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, let me say that your argument based on other pages' existence is fallacious; many pages exist that should not, and many pages do not exist that should.
 * Again, the issue at heart here is not the promotion of the page. If I felt the page was biased, yet about a notable subject, then I would support keeping it (although of course rewriting it would be good). But here I quote from the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I ask you, which one of these sources provides coverage about Stinger itself? Here is my analysis of each link in the References and External Link sections:


 * 1) The 1up.com reference doesn't say anything about Stinger itself, it just has a quote from Kevin Williams which doesn't even talk about Stinger. And the quote is short when compared to the overall length of the article; the notability guidelines generally caution against using brief mentions like that.
 * 2) The Kevin Williams interview doesn't really show him talking about Stinger; he mentions it once near the end, and that's it.
 * 3) The biography is short, one paragraph long, and again barely mentions Stinger. It also reads like a press release or something, not like a neutral, objective article.
 * 4) The Arcade Renaissance link again doesn't provide any information about Stinger, merely quote it. The point of having sources is so that we can write an article based on them; what information does this link provide about Stinger?
 * 5) The other spong.com link also doesn't mention Stinger except for in a brief blurb near the end, which provides next to no information abou t it.
 * 6) The videogametopics.com link is just a repeat of the Arcade Renaissance link and so doesn't add anything new. Literally; the text was lifted word for word.
 * 7) The Inside Coin-Op link doesn't say anything about Stinger, just host some articles written by it. What information can we derive from these articles?
 * 8) Finally, the GameSetWatch link. It as well doesn't really supply much information about it, just a couple of quotes that the author found amusing, each of which has a one-sentence commentary.
 * As for the claim of accreditation, the only one of the links you provided that had any information specifically about Stinger was the TEA link. And that barely contains any; just some contact information and a short, two-sentence profile.
 * I think part of the confusion is that it hasn't been made clear that the purpose of the sources is to provide information about Stinger so that we can write a multi-sourced article, not just for their own sake. So a source that barely mentions Stinger except for once sentence is next to useless in this context, even though it might be a very well-written article. I hope this helps your understanding. Veinor (talk to me) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have taken them on board and propose to look at the situation with a final re-write. I am concerned that first I was asked to add references that we worked in the sector, then about the Stinger, now in great detail about the service (which seems to go back to the Puff allegations at the beginning). As time is limited I have undertaken the following:
 * SPONG interview – This offers a view of the contributor mentioned in the page and dose state how the views covered in the Stinger are shaped (it has been worded thus in the page now)
 * Develop Bio – I have moved this into external links
 * Arcade Renaissance – I have included this quote as an example of Stinger coverage used in reporting
 * The other Spong coverage – this seems a unusual comment by you, it was written by the Stinger, it actually says that? It has been retained in the new page


 * GameWatch coverage – I have kept the page, I think it dose explain the reason behind the Stingers interest – HOWEVER it is still felt inappropriate it will be removed

Finally, I have to take umbrage with your comment about ignoring other sites treatment – I am not asking for special privileges, just a level playing field. I have actually undertaken this re-write emulating Evil Avatar, which seemed to offer a good comparison to what TSR is. I notice their lack of a need for reference to survive and so have used the same approach. I look forward to the reaction! Stingerreport (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CasBox coverage – I have been sent the early coverage of the Stinger from the start and have added this to the links
 * Trade Accreditation – I think you dismissed the trade association stuff off hand. The TEA coverage is the same for ALL members, no more no less and describes the company and its addition as a member. I have totally redressed the association part as it seems that it is being sidelined
 * Regarding your 'umbrage' as mentioned above; I wasn't saying you were asking for favoritism; I was saying your statement that "Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters?" wasn't really relevant, because each article is handled on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, let's look at the new links:


 * Inside Coin-Op: as pointed out before, this doesn't have any informatoin about Stinger on it, just a collection of columns.
 * The GameWatch link: it doesn't really say much about it other than "sometimes they write funny or interesting things." It doesn't describe, as a hypothetical, Stinger's instrumental role in uncovering the Great Coin Box Scandal of 2003. It merely gives two sentences the author thought was amusing.
 * The Kevin Williams interview, as I have mentioned repeatedly, doesn't give any information about Stinger itself. While it does provide information on Kevin Williams's viewpoints, those don't necessarily translate into anything related to Stinger; people can have biases separate entirely from their publications.
 * The other spong.com link doesn't mention Stinger at all except for that one bit near the bottom; if you didn't know that it mentioned it there, what was the point of linking to it, and how does it help establish notability?
 * As for the links that quote Stinger, my question to you is: how do we use these links to provide information about Stinger? Not about issues that it's reported on, about Stinger itself.
 * The trade association comment was not to impugn Stinger, it was meant to point out that nowhere is it said that accreditation itself is enough for notability. It's merely evidence that something is probably notable and would merit further research.
 * Finally, the CasBox link. I like it, but the problem is that it looks like the majority of that was written by somebody at Stinger; reliable sources have to be people uninvolved with the subject they're writing about. Veinor (talk to me) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable and blatant conflict of interest  Nakon  16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is becoming near impossible to understand the official statements for the spurious individuals who appear, make a statement and then vanish without want to discuss the situation. The Stinger Report page originally was entered with NO names. We then had complaint that we should attribute its coverage. Now we have done EVERYTHING to ensure that it meets requirements the goal post has been moved. You will see that we have removed the creators name - but will not remove the interview as it is valid (unless the Wiki team feel that it has to go - not just by anonymous comments). Stingerreport (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am GREATLY concerned by the method of moderating a page, we have done everything asked, and worked with those that requested change. But after doing more than asked we then suddenly find our account closed as if to try and stop us questioning some statements. This seemed to come after we proved that one complaint was incorrect about the page created. Is this Wiki's policy to smother questioning? Or is this a miss use of power? Kwp729 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was somebody blocking that account for violating the username policy; usernames are not allowed to be the names of websites, organizations, etc. However, the standard procedure is to wait until any disputes the user is in before doing so. I guess the blocking admin didn't check. It's not a conspiracy, simply somebody being overzealous. If it was a conspiracy, then you wouldn't have been able to make a new account. Veinor (talk to me) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Veinor, it is this 'overzealous' behavior that I was concerned by - rather than a 'conspiracy'. It seems with the whole process of creating this page I have met 'overzealous' attitude. Be it the complaints of Puff, that then suddenly changed to complaints of lies, then when it was found that the pages info was based on fact, I managed to strike up a understanding (thanks in part to your appreciated information), then a sudden attack for deletion with no reason, and finally after doing EVERYTHING asked I am instantly blocked - now only to find out that this is not how it should happen. You must see from my point of view that there is a lot broken with the way information is added to the Wiki. I need to know:


 * the status of my accounts (why sudden closure)
 * the status of the page

and what can be done to address any outstanding issues. Again I thank you for your help on this. I am just unhappy that 'overzealous' individuals have such power (now I have said this will this latest account be blocked??) Kwp729 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Stinger Report account is blocked and will probably remain so indefinitely, due to violation of the username policy. The account you're currently using won't be blocked unless you do something extra to warrant it, and I don't think even the most zealous of our administrators would consider what you're doing to justify blocking. If criticizing administrators was a blockable offense, I think half the people we have now, including a good deal of the administrators, would be blocked themselves. The page itself still exists and will remain so until all 5 days of the Article for deletion process are done, which will be sometime Friday.
 * As for the issues, that's basically what this entire debate is: me confronting you with issues and you amending them (or at least attempting to). Oh, and I don't recall any accusations of lying, at least none made by me. Of course, my memory could be faulty. Veinor (talk to me) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again Veinor - without your information this process would have been a dud. Regarding the accusations, you were not one of the individuals - I had to go to the 'talk' of one of the critics of the page to be told the reason for their claim for instant deletion only for that comment to be removed from their page (assumed they checked the facts and saw they had made a fool of them selves). I await the next stage in this process. Kwp729 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (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.