Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centsports (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Centsports
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a follow-up from the deletion discussion for FreeSportsBet.com at Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com, which resulted in delete. Centsports was acquired by FreeSportsBet.com; there are essentially the same sources to support Centsports that there were to support FreeSportsBet.com, but consensus for FreeSportsBet.com was that WP:GNG was not met. For Censports, one Forbes article is not sufficient, no other sources contribute toward WP:GNG, WP:GNG is not met. 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Good, sufficient sources found; notability established  13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is my review of the relevant sources, taken from Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com:
 * http://www.thefastertimes.com/sportschat/2011/09/01/centsports-com-taken-over-by-freesportsbet-com-centsports-users-screwed/
 * The source http://www.thefastertimes.com/about-us/ appears WP:RS legit, it has an editorial board run by an experienced journalist
 * However the "article" by Mark Donatiello, staff reporter, looks more like a personal blog post than a news article, not good enough to contribute toward WP:GNG
 * http://www.gambling-law-US.com
 * Doesn't mention either FreeSportsBet.com or Centsports by name
 * http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/12/online-gambling-centsports-ent-manage-cx_jb_0612onlinegambling.html
 * Legit, whole article dedicated to discussion of Centsports.com, contributes toward WP:GNG
 * http://www.centsports.com/cronies.php
 * WP:SPS
 * Looking for other sources, I found:
 * Plenty of blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign, none of it contributes toward WP:GNG
 * Nothing else

03:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – The topic meets passes WP:GNG per:
 * Forbes Magazine – A Legal Alternative To Online Gambling
 * Lubbock Avalanche-Journal – Former West Texas native takes a bet on gambling Web site
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, I agree you found a second WP:RS mention that I didn't find. But, at Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com you !voted to delete, and you're !voting keep here? What's the value in keeping an article about a defunct company when consensus was that the acquiring company did not meet WP:GNG? Unless we find some other stunning news that Centsports was notable before it got acquired (and so then the article should be updated), I feel like common sense should prevail over a mechanical application of WP:GNG.  04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the topic "Centsports". FreeSportsBet.com was a different article, with a different degree of coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the website is not defunct, it exists right here, centsports.com, where it's stated "CentSports is now part of FreeSportsBet.com." Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, editors have not said the website was defunct, but rather the company. Also, regarding the website, http://www.centsports.com/ is now simply a pass-through portal page to FreeSportsBet.com, the account signup button at Centsports.com takes you to the FreeSportsBet.com signup page, the Centsports.com "Contact Us" button shows the contact information for FreeSportsBet.com, and none of the functionality at FreeSportsBet.com appears to carry any Centsports branding.  The several sources since found for Centsports look good toward WP:GNG and I'm reconsidering my !vote... there's no need to put up this sort of straw-man argument.    12:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Added a source to my !vote above from Symmes Law Group. Changed to "strong keep". Northamerica1000(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, If the acquiring company was deleted as not notable, I don't think that the defunct company should be considered notable.  Centsports has a few articles about it only because it engaged in online gambling, which is of questionable legality in the United States.  Based on everything I've read, the company had five employees, and was in business for 4 years, and they don't seem to have done much to be considered notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Added another source to my !vote above. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, If the acquiring company was deleted as not notable, I don't think that the defunct company should be considered notable.  Centsports has a few articles about it only because it engaged in online gambling, which is of questionable legality in the United States.  Based on everything I've read, the company had five employees, and was in business for 4 years, and they don't seem to have done much to be considered notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Added another source to my !vote above. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably Delete Besides the Forbes articles, I was able to find one other independent source about Centsports, which was discussing the company's possibly illegal conduct. I was not able to find out any information about the size of Centsports, which is now part of FreeSportsBet.com. Neither Centsports or FreeSportsBet is listed by Manta, thus indicating that they might be a very small operation.  Article reads like an advertisement, and despite a couple of independent sources, the subject matter is not notable. Although a case can be made that Centsports possibly meets Wikipedia's corporate notability guideline, because the company's references are largely discussing the legality of Centsports' acts, I think that Wikipedia's event notability guideline should be the governing policy.  WP:EVENT requires extensive, long-lasting, and deep coverage, which this article doesn't have. NJ Wine (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See my !vote above; more sources have been found. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note – This nomination has been withdrawn (See top of discussion). Northamerica1000(talk) 17:17, 9 June 2012 (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.