Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1xbet

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8[contribs] 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

1xbet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.
Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.
I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?
I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).
2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.
3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.
It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.
You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Both editors should refrain from casting aspersions on each other. WP:SPI is where you should inquire about potential sockpuppery, please keep accusations out of AFD discussions which should focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. We need more editors to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just noticed that the page I edited the infobox of last year was nominated for deletion. Honestly it surprised me because it is one of the most well-written and well-balanced pages in the betting category here on Wikipedia. It excludes any advertisement - as I can see through the history log, the page was violated numerous times by ill-intended users who tried to put their agenda here by placing wrong links in the website link section or tried to put false and poorly referenced information. All these attemps were reverted again and again despite unhealthy attention from the "attackers" - page has been in semi-protection 2 or 3 times as I can see through the history.
Current state of the page has a lot of unreferenced information as well - as someone who did some editing on this article before, I can try and add some resources to the information I can find here (mainly the infobox, controversies and sponsorship section).
Another thing that surprised me was that the initial edit here removed some of the well-referenced (and new) parts of the sponsorship section. These things are easily found on the web and are covered thoroughly by different resources since it is concerns big football clubs and the leagues in Europe.
I believe that under the Wiki rules 1XBET article doesn’t alter from other betting-related pages (especially the ones about the brands and companies), yet still it was nominated for deletion.
In the coming days I will try to add references here and add up-to-date information, removing false or made-up parts of it. HanStark (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some resources to the page. Also I've tried to add some up-to-date information regarding betting deals, will try to find more information about the company that can be added in the general information section about the company's history.
Hope my input can help the wiki admins. HanStark (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Removed some parts that were mentioned by users below as a sponsored content from paid resources. Went through the article and also removed some of the parts that seems sketchy to me (e.g. sponsorship of not-so-relevant leagues that only have the generic press-release). As of August 12th, the article seems fine for me to stay and meets WP:GNG. HanStark (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article’s citations consist mostly of partnership announcements and sponsored articles, such as those from Outlook India and The Daily Guardian, these two sources are clearly sponsored. I haven’t found any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I tried searching on Google, but it’s full of promotional articles, blogs, coupons, and announcements. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I’m unsure what will happen to this AfD, especially since the nominator is blocked. If someone can share sources with in-depth coverage, they are welcome to do so. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the review of GrabUp the sources do not appear to be independent, and therefore alignment with the WP:GNG is not shown. C679 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added new references which meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've also removed a lot of cruft and sharpened the focus of the article. HighKing++ 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, can you share the three best sources that can help the article pass GNG/NCORP? GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aydoh8, can you please explain why you decided to "relist" this AfD? WP:RELIST advises a relisting for a number of reasons, none of which are evident here, especially when it now appears that consensus to Keep has been reached. I note your activities at AfDs have previously been called into question. HighKing++ 11:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to close it as keep, but I didn't know whether it would be reverted by an admin again. I'll probably go ahead and close anyway. Aydoh8[contribs] 11:39, 13 August 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1xbet&oldid=1240076996"