Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftSwiss

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. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoftSwiss[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)

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows google hits in user generated sources, self published sources and other primary unreliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Advertisement of a company. References that are provided do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: Thank you all for expressing your opinions on the article that I have created. First, I wish to emphasize that I worked hard to write this article, while sticking to Wikipedia's writing guidelines and avoiding promotional content and poor sources. I'm fully aware of the promotional editing issues in Wikipedia, but this is definitely not the case in this article - I would invite you to read it again. As for the notability claim, please review the article again because I have added a few more reliable and independent sources, such as Bloomberg. In general, speaking as a "professional" gamer, SoftSwiss is a notable company, with huge revenue and a variety of popular products. I didn't note it in the article because then SoftSwiss' article on Wikipedia would seem like it has been written by a marketing specialist, but of course this is not the case. Thanks for reading. --Bigball79 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Your hard work as you say, is duly noted & appreciated but unfortunately the organization doesn’t meet WP:NCORP thus isn’t mainspace worthy at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article sourcing is decent, and company is clearly prominent in gambling industry. At the very least, it meets WP:BASIC, though it could do a little better with WP:SIGCOV Redoryxx (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search of the company's name provides multiple results from diverse sources. As I see it, according to the notability guidelines, the company definitely deserves an article on Wikipedia. However, additional citations from sources that aren't related to the gambling industry are needed for the article. I would suggest adding a {{refimprove}} tag for lack of verifiability. HappyHippo1990 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote not to delete the article because it seems adequate for Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The content doesn't seem promotional and the company has extensive online presence. I Agree with HappyHippo1990 that a {{refimprove}} template should be added to the article. Novobat (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither BASIC nor SIGCOV are relevant guidelines for a company, the topic must pass NCORP. There's 34 references and none meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements, failing WP:ORGIND. Some are mentions in passing or have a brief company description which echos all the other descriptions used in other announcements and articles, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Its not about the volume (and 34 is unnecessary) of references but the quality of content within the references. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have carefully read the above discussions and I believe that there is WP:INCONSISTENT in regard to this article. I have already voted, but I still wish to point out that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about similar companies that either lack notability, poorly sourced or clearly advocating for these companies. I have plenty of examples: Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Novomatic, Playtech, Endorphina, Ramco Systems, Rediff.com, Sasken Technologies and Onward Technologies - If the articles about these companies have been published and still exist on Wikipedia, I believe that there could be place for my article as well. To sum up, I understand the arguments but I think they are enforced inconsistently; either delete them all or keep this one. Bigball79 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is inevitable this will happen when we have millions of articles. It's not a policy or guideline, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sums it up very well. I hope that's helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Bigball79 and 78.26. First impression on Google Search does prove NCORP for the relevant industry. As for the claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think that Bigball79 has a point: Multiple articles on similar companies do exist on Wikipedia. Furthermore, after conducting WP:NCTest for Microgaming & Realtime Gaming, I can confirm that SoftSwiss is more notable (and better sourced). Although I understand why others voted in favor of deletion, I don't see a solid argument for it in this case, especially considering the fact that articles about similar companies are far more questionable in terms of COI. Abu Al Adab (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Abu Al Adab, I don't think you grasped what 78.26 was saying. He was rejecting the argument put forward by Bigball79 that this topic should exist because there are others on similar topics that exist. If you believe the topic company is notable, please post a link below to the best WP:THREE article that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 8 March 2021 (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.