Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Options

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 article has been much better referenced since the start of the AfD.--Konst.able^Talk 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting Options

Notability appears to be marginal, at best. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Might be worth a paragraph in an article about on-line gambling, but sources are thin on the ground. The best i could find is this. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Given the Daily Telegraph references that have been added, I withdraw my 'delete' recommendation. -- Donald Albury 19:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to Betfair. Obviously notable and met WP:CORP and WP:WEB when it existed. I have no clue about the previous comment as five seconds of research can find BBC and Register articles. It was the second largest betting exchange. I would encourage User:Nlu to stop making these afd's without doing any research at all on the subject. The historical notability here is plainly obvious. The nomination should be withdrawn, and if someone wants to discuss merging the content to the Betfair article that should be done on the article's talk page. 2005 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw those two sources, but I do not consider the Register to be a reliable source, and the BBC report is prior to the collapse of the company, barely mentions Sporting Options and so does not support the contents of the article. And I did spend considerably more than five seconds researching this. -- Donald Albury 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is well-referenced, and the company is clearly notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I added three references from The Daily Telegraph which talk about the administration itself. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough I'd wager. -- technopilgrim 01:55, 21 October 2006 (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.