Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expekt.com

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expekt.com[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

one of the first major online sports betting operators made me think this had a chance at being a notable company, but "one of" isn't too strong, and I can't find any sourcing to verify this. There's nothing to expand on from the Swedish article and sourcing in both languages are press releases and executive changes, nothing beyond run of the mill and certainly nothing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, Companies, and Sweden. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Star Mississippi 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. "One of whatever", poorly sourced, is just not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several mentions in reliable and notable sources that can be used to expand the article: https://www.moratidning.se/2009-12-16/conny-gesar-har-salt-spelbolaget-expekt https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/a/BJr3O9/furstendomet-monaco-koper-svenska-expekt https://www.svd.se/a/f44b1215-7130-3092-8ed1-c19102631bb1/svenska-miljardarer-pa-spel https://www.breakit.se/artikel/28238/leovegas-forvarvar-expekt-for-50-miljoner https://www.realtid.se/ledningsbyte-i-expekt-efter-brak/ https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/hans-hoga-spel-betalar-sig/ Sjö (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News about sale/merger acquisitions are somewhat routine and/or press-releases. On the bright side, some of them do seem to provide at least a brief description of the company... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjö. This search retrieves recurring coverage in Sweden's largest daily, this one contains even more form the largest business daily. This article mentions Expekt as having been the biggest online gambling company in Sweden in 2005, while others place is among the 3-6 biggest gambling companies in Sweden overall. Väsk (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe it meets WP:NCORP, however the review of local media is needed to evaluate the media coverage and its quality. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing the new Swedish citations presented by Sjö I agree that it meets notability. For example, these seem to be good: this, this and this. Zeddedm (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there is a couple of WP:SPAs here. Is it a sock pile on? scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Lookings at some of the refs on this page alone. Apart from the raw search url which is non-rs for Afd:

[1] This is a routine annoucement of a sale.
[[2]] This one is a press-release.
[[3]] A routine annoucement of being bought.
[[4]] Another routine annoucement failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Being sold.
[[5]] More routine coverage. The old owners will share 1.4billion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. monies.

I have no faith that any of these references constitute proper secondary sources that are in-depth, independent and significant, that satisfies WP:SIRS. The articles references equally poor. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, sources are routine financing, company news. So we do not pass WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. Agree with Scope Creep's analysis above. Looking for other sources, I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:NCORP applies here and the sources are missing independent content, let alone enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement. Jontesta (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be popular to some but not notable for Wiki. killer bee  14:59, 29 June 2022 (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.