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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z

Jackpot Factory[edit]

Jackpot Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Clearly spam. User has added this casino group with obviously spam/marketing company text, and also added it to the Microgaming page. User has added multiple links to the company's casinos. Without doubt added by an employee or agent of the subject of the article for SEO purposes. Nssdfdsfds 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not spam at all. the jackpot factory group is a using microgaming technology, therefor the link from the microgaming page is legit as well as the text published. i can see no difference between this page and other group of casinos that are linked from the microgaming page. Niv.

You're a spammer. Spammers don't get a vote: [1] [2] And an Israeli IP address too. The same Israel where Jackpot Factory is based: [3] Hmmm. Nssdfdsfds 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - no one is trying to hide anything, i'm not sure why are you calling me a spammer though: all i said is that there is no difference between this page and other Microgaming's groups pages. if you think it is for seo reasons you can always delete the links to the 4 casinos, either than that, it is exactly like the other pages, therefore, in my opinion, not spam at all.

I'm calling you a spammer because the two changes I listed above were spam. That makes you a spammer. Clear?

There *is* a difference between this page and the other Microgaming groups: Fairground Gaming is a PLC quoted on the stockmarket, and intrinsically more notable. Grand Prive is also up for deletion. Fortune Lounge is notable because it caused a major spam controversy. Carmen Media is marginal, but slightly more notable because it has at least some profile as it is a Gibraltar-licensed company with a degree of openness. Jackpot Factory doesn't have that. Perhaps if you can think of something that makes Jackpot Factory notable, then it can stay, perhaps if you could find some 'Inspirational Stories' [4] about how Jackpot Factory casinos cure cancer, then that might establish notability. Nssdfdsfds 10:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to try and meet everyone's concerns. (1) Notability: I added a section on the awards that Jackpot Factory and its component casinos have won. Surely, an organization's being recognized as the best in the world in its particular field is notable. It is far more notable than such trivial accomplishments as being quoted on the stockmarket or being licensed in Gibralter. (2) External Links: I deleted all external links except for the link to the Jackpot Factory official website. I thought they were helpful but, for some reason that I do not understand, they seemed to bother people. For the sake of peace, I got rid of them. Peter54 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best in the world? Are you for real?

Casino awards have no value whatsoever. They are based on payments to the awarding body. I mean come on, "Top Gambler: Best Online Casino Graphics 2006 – First Web Casino". Best Online Casino Graphics? They are all the same!!!! There are nearly 100 Microgaming casinos, and the graphics are the same in every casino. How can anyone think these awards have value. These awards are just BS for casinos to use in their marketing (as you are doing here). Apart from payments to the awarder (to be casinomeister-accredited you have to pay casinomeister), where these awards are supposedly based on reader votes (not sure that any you have listed are), these are spammed by the casinos '$50 bonus if you vote for us', and so on. Casino awards are worthless. It's absolutely laughable that you even suggest that your casino group is 'recognised as best in the world'. So aside from those silly awards, there's absolutely nothing in the article that's notable, as everything that's listed there is just general 'Microgaming casino' stuff.

Please stop talking about other articles. They might not be notable either. You need to satisfy the notability criteria for *this article*, with reference not to other articles, but to the notability guidelines, which you'll find here: WP:ORG. Nssdfdsfds 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What is the evidence for your assertion that awards are granted on a corrupt basis? Jackpot Factory casinos have been recognized as the Best Online Casino by Top Gambler, Gambling.com, and Got2Bet. That is why I say Jackpot Factory has been recognized as the best in the world in its field, which is definitely notable. If there is evidence that the awards are corrupt, I would be interested to know what it is. (2) The best way to understand a rule is to see how it is applied in actual practice. It is ridiculous to say that the Notability rule allows articles on Carmen Media, Fairground Gaming, Fortune Lounge Group, and Grand Prive, but does not allow an article on Jackpot Factory. If a rule is to make any sense, it must be applied in a consistent manner. Peter54 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Privé has been nominated for deletion. If you think the other sites don't meet WP:CORP, you can nominated them for deletion as well. Evidence that the awards are corrupt? Hmm, how's this for you:

"Will you be voted top the Gambling.com Member’s Polls? List your site on the Voting page and look out for the Results at the end of each month." "Once your listing has been approved, you can then manage your cpc bids from as little as 20c – your bid price will then determine the position your site appears on the individual Voting Category pages, with just the TOP 20 being displayed. Members will visit these pages to cast their votes – so the higher you are listed, the more likely you are to receive their vote!" "Each member is able to cast up to 3 votes per month per category [Subject to the standard voting rules] Votes are weighted in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd. You may wish to encourage your visitors to vote for you by using the following ‘Vote for Us’ graphics on your site." "Even though these awards are dated monthly, ie March 2005 – you can continue to host them indefinitely, therefore if you finish 3rd in February and just outside the top 5 the following month you will still be able to display the February Award if you wish." Nssdfdsfds 10:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per the external links/recognition, but it has to read less like an advertisement. Just H 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links satisfy the "independent, verifiable, and credible online sources" criteria. Nssdfdsfds 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; subject certainly seems to have some notability within its field, but its general notability is not sufficient for inclusion here. As a side note, however, Nssdfdsfds, you could do a LOT to improve your tone here. Chances are that this deletion nomination will succeed regardless of whether you come out with guns blazing. So why not tone down the attacks and be polite? --Sneftel 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable enough to be included here. The total number of Microgaming casinos are irrelevant; this article is about a company which operates a group of Microgaming powered casinos and should be included. (The article does need to be cleaned up though.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does operating a group of Microgaming casinos make a company notable? I wouldn't have said so. Microgaming itself is notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything interesting to add about the individual companies - they all have the same games, near-identical graphics, same software, and mostly are offshore companies with no solid enyclopedic info available. Nssdfdsfds 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does if you're interested in knowing which offshore companies own Microgaming-powered casinos, sure. Rray 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing encyclopedic to say about these offshore companies. There's no useful info to add. You'd have articles for Fortune Lounge, Vegas Partner Lounge, Trident Entertainment, Casino Rewards, Grand Privé, Jackpot Factory, Ashanti Entertainment, Casino Action, MiniVegas, Roxy, and all 10 articles could be created using a search and replace. E.g., "Trident Entertainment is a group of Microgaming casinos. All of its casinos are certified by eCOGRA. It won CasinoPlayer's Best of Gaming award in 2006. It owns the following sites'. The same content, with a different spurious award found off some obliging website (trust me, every casino on the web has won a 'World's best casino' award *somewhere) would work for the other articles. There's nothing there that extends what Microgaming already says. A private group that owns a few of the 100+ identikit Microgaming gaming sites is not of itself notable. Nssdfdsfds 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your reply so that it would be clear it was a reply to my last post. And regarding the rest of your post, I disagree. I think it's notable and should be included here. Rray 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As much as I dont care for Nssdfdsfds method of argument I cannot see a group of semi-notable casino companies warrent their own page. The "awards" listed only seem to be online voting results, not "awards" per se, and hardly come from well known websites or sources. I do a fair amount of online gambling and have heard of none of the mentioned sites. It all seems to be a bit of an advert to me and contains a number of unneccessary links. TSMonk 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but I'm also working on the grounds that I'm not sure a gambling or online gambling journal would be considered a reliable source. The article feels a little spammy, so that's what I'm hedging on. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find much info, as above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-promotion, borderline spam, non-notable. Realkyhick 05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no advertisements.--Aervanath 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.