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.
promotional article with no real claim to notabilty and no coverage in indepentent reliable sources. (prod removed) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Google Web shows no apparent signs of notability. No results on Google News. The article's leading paragraph is written in an overly promotional tone and most of its content seems unverifiable[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I have a conflict of interest as a member, so I won't be participating in the straw poll, but I'll point out some relevant information. As per Rankiri, WP:WEB is the most relevant guideline here. Calling this article WP:SPAM is completely ridiculous, suggesting a misunderstanding of the guideline. WP:V isn't relevant because it only requires more than primary sources when claims are contentious. As a member for six years, the only notability that I've heard of would be: occasional showcasing on the NZ Web Awards, the SERPG project by unassociated member Brass, and close ties with Hard from Sexy Losers and other semi notable webmasters of NSFW sites. –Gunslinger47 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a conflict of interest as a member does not bar you from participating in the "straw poll". State your potential conflict of interest, explain your reasons an article should be kept/deleted. Do that and your input will be seriously considered. And respected a hell of a lot more than those who pretend to have no COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope to be taken seriously regardless. WP:PNSD, as you know. –Gunslinger47 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:SPAM just fine, particularly the section about "Advertisements masquerading as articles". This reads like little more than a masked promotion for me. You can disagree if you want but I won't call you ridiculous and claim that you don't understand. I can accept that you read it differently than I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By labeling a collaborative work an advertisement masquerading as an article, you're assuming bad faith by the contributors. There's no reason to assume that any of them were primarily focused on promoting the site. If your issue is with tone and fairness, WP:NPOV would be more suitable. If your issue is with the lack third-party references, the article either needs expansion or has an issue with Wikipedia:Notability. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can characterize it however you want. The IP that started the article has no other edits. The IP that did most of the early editing did almost nothing but edit this article. I don't need a lecture from you for having an opinion. AGF goes so far, then WP:DUCK kicks in. It smells like spam to me and I stated my opinion. I appreciate that you don't see it that way, but I have seen no evidence that would make me change that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to better understand your opinion. Specifically, which parts of the article seem inappropriately promotional? What products or services were the contributors trying to sell? –Gunslinger47 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the "references" are just links to the website, but some are made to look as though they come from outside sources (Brass - ??). Nothing on G-News, Ghits are the website, WP, promotional stuff and unrelated material. Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brass is an SE user who has no official relationship to the current or past owners of SE. He owns the serpg.com site which hosts the game he created. I doubt this would qualify as an "outside source", however. –Gunslinger47 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (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.