Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanleybet International

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 speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanleybet International[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Toohool with the following rationale " For a business of this size and with an 18-year history, there are sure to be lots of sources to satisfy GNG, even if they are a little hard to find b/c the company operates mostly in non-English countries". Well, then, do show us those reliable refs; I don't see any. All I see is mentions in passing, and PR spam. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are just a few sources to meet GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If you simply search Google News for "stanleybet", you will see that there are many more sources in other languages, since most of the company's hundreds of locations are in countries like Romania, Croatia, and Italy. Can't imagine why the nom would think this article is spam, considering it doesn't sound very promotional, and a company with no operations in English-speaking countries wouldn't have much reason to promote itself in English Wikipedia. (They do actually have UK locations, but didn't open them until 2014, while this article was created in 2009.) Please consider systemic bias factors in your campaign against spam articles. Toohool (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toohool: You are right, I must have mistyped the company's name. I see the sources now, and they are satisfactory. I am withdrawing this nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 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.