Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarkets (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2006. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I contest deletion of this article. The 2006 nomination came before this company existed, so this is a different article. The company has received coverage from several reliable sources, a number of which in the last 12 months (Sky, AFP, BBC, Bloomberg). I will revise the page, remove guff and add better references. Chopz (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - having updated the article and references. For notability, I'd point to that it is front of shirt sponsor of a London football team, coverage in bbc/sky/afp/telegraph & adverse coverage in the UK' s Guardian , amongst other mentions -Chopz (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment: The "Keep" vote comes from Special:Contributions/Chopz who is the article creator and has few other contributions. The sources offered above do not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP, being mostly self-promotion and routine notices. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There exist BBC and other MSM articles on Smarket's pay policy. Nothing else qualifies as a quality source. The Guardian's negative article does not appear on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mpr1c3 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is evidence of notability. Agree that the QPR sponsorship announcement is routine, but as per WP:NCORP the company's notability is clear from the coverage by RS in MSM. The BBC, Sky etc. coverage certainly meets the notability criteria.-Chopz (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Please read WP:NCORP. None of that coverage is "intellectually independent" as it is all based on company-produced announcements, information, interviews, etc. The Guardian article is reporting on an event with little or no in-depth information on the company itself and no independent analysis/opinion.  HighKing++ 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP  HighKing++ 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 20:49, 6 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.