Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bet-at-home.com


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bet-at-home.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article recently (cross-wiki) created by what appear a group of COI editors, using redirect sites to avoid tripping blacklisted .com. The base of this article is totally referenced to primary sources. There is some mention of the site in some other sources, but that relates to 'bet-at-home.com sponsored this event'. Seems a big organisation, but lets discuss whether this is indeed notable enough for an own article. 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra T C

It was the aim to write an article which confirms with all the guidelines of Wikipedia and don’t has any extenuations in it. Due to this I wrote the article together with an adopter of the English Wikipedia. The adopter checked the article I’ve prepared on the sandbox. I am willing to change the article to avoid the deletion.--Bah2011 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you could dig up a good number of independent references. The first non-subject related reference is currently #12, which is a correct reference for the statement, but I don't feel that those (or subsequent similar references) give too much proof of notability for the company.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to switch the article back to my sandbox so that I could have a look at the references and have the possibility to change them please? --Bah2011 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy for now. Creator clearly shows willingness to fix the issues with the article. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  18:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not unwilling to move it back to userspace - that may be a good solution - but still I'd like to see some references which give this entry proper notability first, otherwise it stays there catching dust. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now searched for more independent references. Should I integrate them now in the article or in the userspace? --Bah2011 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do that now as well. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have integrated the new references. In some cases there are now two references for one part of the article. Could you please give me a feedback if the new references are ok in your opinion? --Bah2011 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is getting better, I am a bit worried for the first one, that seems to be research which is done on request by bet-at-home.com (do I see that correct, or does Performaxx select which companies to research themselves?). I'd like to hear some further input from other editors as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an independent research house. But I have now supplemented this part with a second reference from a quality newspaper.--Bah2011 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With the addition of the new sources the article now passes WP:WEB and scratches on WP:GNG. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  07:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.