Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Realms

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Realms

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

I'm unable to judge notability, as the references are entirely announcements about financing and the like. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick WP:BEFORE search finds loads of suitible references [1] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to post some links? None of the ones in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability and I can't locate any that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I did leave a link to the news link above, but SBC News, Gamingintellegence.com, Gaming Business, The Daily Express, mention in the Evening Standard Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response None of the links you've provided meets the criteria for establishing notability. The link you posted in your first !vote was to Google. See WP:GHITS. This SBC News reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The Gamingintellegence.com reference is based on this company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND. The Gaming Business reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The Express reference provides no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is also a joint company announcement with the Health Lottery relying on quotations from company officials, therefore not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this Standard reference is a mention-in-passing at the end of the article to highlight the fact that the company announced it had launched a number of gaming sites for Ladbrokes Coral. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company (with a marketing department) going about their business. Not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None are intellectually independent and they rely either on company announcements or quotations/interviews with company personnel. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many non-trivial references in reputable publications, including some of those listed by Lee Vilenski. Also see [2]. There are also a number of detailed independent analyst reports about the company - see [3] and [4]. As a public company, there is a strong presumption that Gaming Realms is notable, which is bourne out in this case. -Mparrault (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you! The Shares Magazine reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. Normally, a research firm is indeed an acceptable reference as they can provide independent coverage of firms. In this case though, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page clearly states Gaming Realms is a research client of Align Research. Align Research & a Director of Align Research hold interests in the shares of Gaming Realms. Therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Simply Wall St. reference is not an independent research firm but a startup stockbroking firm. It is also *not* a reliable source as the website clearly states The opinions and content on this site are those of the contributing authors and not Simply Wall St. Apply to become a contributor here. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The content is corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2018 (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.