Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bet9ja

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. Sandstein 19:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bet9ja

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely non-notable company: speedied as such. Article creator has just removed a speedy tag for the third time, despite being warned not to. TheLongTone (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: There are notable sources cited in respect to the subject yet you say it is not notable. On what criterion/ria is this nomination based on? This is a gambling website that is very popular in Nigeria. I also noticed you tag articles for AfD and CSD like a newbie. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've already been uncivil toward me in an edit summary. I smell spam.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 18:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the reliable sources already in the article. I probably do not understand why this was speeded per A7 in the first instance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should NOT have been speedied, but brought here. There are sources - Nigerian press is mostly in English, which helps (through which of those sources are reliable, and which are tabloids/PR-outlets masquerading as news, is not for me to say). However, even AGF they are RS, IMHO they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH (and I looked beyond sources in the article, on GNews, too). They don't talk about the company, but mention it in passing, even when the company's name is in lead. I see nothing that discuss the company, the coverage seems to be rewritten press releases (ex. [1]), and long quotes from company's official (ex. [2], [3]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bet9ja obviously meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Bet9ja is a leading betting company in Nigeria By the way This Coverage, This one, Thisday News, Pulse, Nigeria Football Federation, The Nation Newspaper, Thisday News, Daily Sun Newspaper, Thisday Newspaper, The Nation Newspaper are significant coverages enough to establish notability per WP:ORG. A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Also per WP:AUD, evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. In fact WP:ORGDEPTH made it clear that if "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" and that is what I've cited above. I'm a Nigeria-based editor. I'm familiar with the subject of this article and what we considered as WP:RS here and in Nigeria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep perhaps simply because of the claims and any noticeably acceptable coverage or else I would've said delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the company advertises. Meh.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.