Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetConstruct


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BetConstruct

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the article will show, there's literally nothing here that ''isn't published, motivated and influenced by the company itself, since (1) the sources literally consist of either blatant company webpages or published-republished PR, but the others are simply trivial and unconvincing, also being PR-coated, therefore there's nothing to suggest actual substance for an article here. It gets worse when my own searches have only found trivial and unconvincing news stories from casino and gambling websites; also, seeing the history here will show the sheer fact of, not only advertising-only accounts (literally since the article started 2 years ago), but there was literally copypaste violations from the company's own published webpages itself, hence there's nothing genuinely convincing to keep. SwisterTwister  talk  01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero indications of notability. Could be a candidate for CSD A7 -- HighKing ++ 12:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- strictly a vanity page with no value to the project. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to serve as a platform for materials that belong on company web sites. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (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.