Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchbook (Betting Exchange)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Matchbook (Betting Exchange)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourcing insufficient for NCORP. Not quite G11 advertising but also not encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - both given sources and those found on the BEFORE check are a mix of primary, non-reliable and especially non-independent. Most coverage was in particular deals the company did rather than actually pertaining to the general company. There was so much dross for pages that its possible a useful source or two is somewhere, but as far as I can tell this article is nowhere near WP:NCORP suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails. Promotion of a company. NANExcella (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Transcribing -, discussion in Articles for Deletion almost entirely takes place on the "Project page" (main page), so I'm dropping your comment here.
 * Ddrumm's Comment - "Hello, This article is under review for possible consideration deletion


 * This is harsh as it is not been given enough time for further users to contribute further information to the companies background. For the issue for used for promotional content this is all relevant to the companies presents within sports industry. Also the same information is been made available on similar Wikipedia e.g Betdaq" (Ddrumm1)
 * Ddrumm1 - unfortunately articles must meet the various criteria (including being notable) from the start. They obviously improve in quality overtime, but they are subject to deletion grounds from the beginning. The sources used are relevant, but not suitable - we can't rely on sources so heavily linked to the company. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by your final comment. If you mean the information can be found there, then by all means tell us specifically where to look in it and we can see if that article has a suitable reference. If you mean "that article exists, why can't this one", the presence of one wikipedia article can't be used to justify another (or the standards would either drop constantly or rise consistently). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2018 (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.