Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12bet

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. L Faraone 02:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12bet

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

Online betting company. Do the refs establish notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I believe that the page on 12bet.com is notable because they were the shirt sponsors of two major football teams in Europe. Also, 12bet has sponsored the 2010 edition of the 2010 UK Championship (snooker), which has a Wikipedia page. Also, 888.com’s Wikipedia page has similar content. If this is allowed to stand, why not 12bet?--KevinKM (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — KevinKM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : In my point of view; "Online betting company. Do the refs establish notability?" ; My answer would be Yes, after I read this article and the references, it matches Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This site/page shows property of being worthy of notice, it also gives significance for Sports News. The references,reports and news that appeared in Reuters and ESPN Sports News were already evidences for 12bet's Significance and Notability. And I can say that the references are qualified for verifiability, for the information that were given was based on facts. This can still be improved for the better. --VivzBurch (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — VivzBurch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Not reviewing the article yet, but the presence of two brand-spanking-new accounts arriving to defend it worries me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has 3 types of references:
1. Those that won't pass WP:RS: References #1, 2.
2. Those that might pass WP:RS but have trivial coverage: Reference #8
3. Those that won't pass WP:RS but have extensive coverage in the form of press releases: The rest

That means this fails on WP:GNG on each of its 5 bullet points. –H T D 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : How can sources such as Reuters and ESPN not be reliable for sports news? Also, there are links to the football clubs’ respective official websites, and these are some of the most reliable sources of information about the teams. Reference number 1 is the Isle of Man government’s website and the official list of all online gambling companies registered in their jurisdiction (Same reference goes with 188BET, SBOBET, Fun88 and more, So if you are saying it won't pass, then how did the same page using that reference passed? ). I believe that this passes most, if not all, of the general notability guidelines. Still, " KEEP " for this page. --KevinKM (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference #1 is what you said it is: a list of all online gambling companies, and nothing else. There's no company profile. So fails WP:GNG.
- The references from the club's official websites do give "the most reliable sources of information about the teams". It doesn't not give an in-depth coverage to 12bet, unfortunately, just statements such as "12bet are the official betting and gaming partner for Newcastle United FC" which could very much be a press release, violating bullet #4 of GNG explicitly.
- The source from ESPN is just like the one above announcement, a press release. Explicitly violating GNG #4. In this reference, 12bet wasn't even mentioned in the prose!
- The only way this can be saved is if someone can come up with a real news article about 12bet, not press releases, not announcements and not a list. A good way to look for it is if somebody interviewed the company's CEO, or probably an in-depth discussion of the company's finances, etc. –H T D 17:23, 3 May 2013 (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.