Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Index
- 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 keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sporting Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Sporting Index. Was deleted 3 times previously, despite multiple sock accounts(ie.current-->Davidsita10 (talk · contribs) and previous--> Davidsita (talk · contribs)) re-creating it. Article Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions.
- This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Sporting_Index_Ltd_Spam
Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable per the many reliable sources listed in the article and found by the Google News and Books searches linked above (even after eliminating false positives), as would be expected for the company that pioneered sports spread betting. Behavioural issues should be dealt with by behavioural remedies, not article deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep enough references are independent to pass GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (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.