Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetNow

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. The "keep" arguments did not cite policy and were refuted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BetNow

BetNow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails on WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Article has little content still they are promotional rather than informative. Passing mentions in few notable sources do not warrant notability. Hitro talk 11:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No where near passing WP:NCORP, or even GNG. No reliable, independent, source gives more than a line on the company. Never a good sign on the notability front when the article starts listing where it has received betting odds mentions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete - I admit this page is a little bit sparse but I feel it should be included for three reasons. 1. I expect more mentions and features as this a company that is growing rapidly and was one of the first to embrace bitcoin betting. 2. It also is based in a country that doesn't have a lot of their companies mentioned in Wikipedia (Can't figure out how to put in the link to the companies of Curaçao). 3. I think this is worthy of inclusion is in doing research before posting this I saw sites that have pages that have been on Wikipedia for a LONG time just like this one is in its current form, for instance BetOnline and BetUS are equally sparse. Either way though if you guys consider it bad I will try and find more backing documentation Thanks, Cliff-- Clifffonte (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clifffonte:. Unfortunately there are a few issues with those reasons. I'll discuss them in order. 1) That a company may/will gain more mentions isn't a reason to keep it now (as we'd never be able to delete anything, as it would almost always be a reason), articles have to be suitable from the point of their creation. 2) While being related to a less-represented country is a great reason to prioritise writing an article, it doesn't reduce the the corporate notability requirements. 3) The short answer here is that other pages existing can't justify this one. If you could justify from equivalents then we'd either have ever-harder inclusion rules or it would become impossible to justify removing anything.

I do wish you the best of luck in finding better sources - if you do, drop a note here to let us know so that I and any other commentators here can see them :) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete: I agree with to the point that Wikipedia could use more companies from this country plus the references are from big authorities. I searched around and this is a well known site outside of just those listed as well.User:AndrewBOS (talk) 2:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AndrewBOS, most of the sources are not "intellectually independent" - which usually means they have a self-interest or bias in covering the subject. The ones that aren't barely mention BetNow, and wikipedia requires Significant Coverage from any source used to establish notability. Trying to improve articles relating to a specific country is a good reason to write articles, but doesn't change the level of justification needed to retain it. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2018 (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.