Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGaming Business


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The only agreement here is that the sources in this article could be improved, the difference of opinion is on whether or not this is possible. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

IGaming Business

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After eliminating related press releases and churnalism, there is not enough for GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity, can I ask specifically what your issue with the sources I added are? StartOkayStop (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gamblingnews.com is no better than a press release. Anything that quotes press releases and add no critical commentary is a puff piece. Three of your cites are the entity, itself, so they're not independent. Stashbird is focused on online gambling, so I don't see that it provides this subject any notability. My assertion is that the subject fails WP:GNG: that is, there are not enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage to claim the subject is notable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we accept the premise that the subject of this article is a genuine media outlet then looking for in-depth coverage is not the right criteria to use. Media outlets generally don’t write deep profiles of other media outlets. There’s a few essays on this. Not casting a vote yet as I haven’t looked too far into this one specifically just making a comment on the lack of “in-depth” coverage here. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is one of the most significant trade magazines in the industry. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Chris troutman’s assessment of the sources as inadequate. The one possible exception is SportBusiness; it’s behind a paywall and I can’t review it.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I originally didn't want to vote, but, seeing the lack of participation, I am going to vote keep because I don't want this to get WP:AFDPROD'd. I agree with the assessment that several of the sources are inadequate-- but, as said, finding in-depth coverage of media outlets like this that meet all 5 GNG criteria is difficult, particularly when it's in a niche like online gambling. That said, while I would consider it as passing notability currently, I will work to add more sources to prove it further. StartOkayStop (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The outlet is frequently cited in books and articles about online gambling. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some of the sources you have found? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.