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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tout monitor[edit]

Original author using this article to promote his service/industry, even though he did remove the direct link to his website. No independent sources to establish notability, not able to verify. Exists primarily to promote. Speedied once and re-created; another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag on the second try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Make this cruft go away. L0b0t (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the moment article is more of a dictdef than spam but, I can't get to the one reference to verify. If its a notable term it should be covered in lots of 3rd party reliable sources and it isn't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement for non-notable product/service. --Damiens.rf 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero references that indicate that the subject is reliable, and insufficient context is given. I'm almost surprised this wasn't speedied again the second time.CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More like an advertisement than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you people know anything about the sports betting industry or this terminology? It's fairly well known, just hasn't been documented in a online encyclopedia to reference. It's a legitimate category and can reference numerous sites that are considered Tout Monitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm sure you'd be happy to educate us, if only we'd go to your web site. (He's the original author, folks.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you go to my site or not. It's simply a reference for this category terminology. I thought this was a place for information? So what is wrong with what I wrote? Rather then just telling me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you used it for promotional purposes, which is specifically prohibited. You only listed your site and another site (apparently affiliated) as references. The purpose of the article seems pretty obvious. If you had included some other references from independent, reliable sources, this might not have happened. Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by those who seek to use it as a venue to promote themselves or their services, and numerous editors and administrators spend an extraordinary amount of time in an effort to keep that stuff out and keep Wikipedia true to its mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the external link to my site and added other references. The purpose of the article was to simply add to the gambling terminology section. Share the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's lay off Bigguyceo for being the author folks he seems to be trying to improve the article. The problem seems to be more with reliable 3rd party referencing. He obviously isn't trying to sell his services when he removed the link quite willingly. I still think it isn't notable enough for its own article but, it may be appropriate to mention it in a different article on sports betting/gambling. It may also help if Bigguyceo can contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner for those that don't automatically assume good faith to have something to help them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A paragraph or short section in Sports betting might be appropriate, but nothing more than that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (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.