Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BackAndLay

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 The article presently has no reliable sources; keep commenters offer mostly weak arguments of the "Wikipedia has an article on X, and X is awful, so we should keep this too" variety. Consensus for deletion is stronger on arguments and in number. Xoloz 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BackAndLay

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. So tagged. If this one gets deleted, I'll tag the 3 articles nominated below too. MER-C 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't add this inappropriate tag again. It was removed once, and I'll remove it again. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, relatively small but nevertheless influential betting exchange in the UK which is in opposition to Betdaq and Betfair. This exchange is steadily acquiring liquidity and it is entirely possible that once reasonable liquidity levels are achieved that the 1% commisssion basis may result in it becoming the major UK exchange. Whilst small, it is still a sizeable presence in some key UK betting markets, and the occasional very serious trade is exercised intra players on there. The article does however need some work and should demonstrate notability to a greater extent than it does. I will give this some attention if the article survives what appears to be an unnecessary and spurious attempt to delete. Sjc 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do so before the discussion period ends, if you can. We can't judge the article on the merits of what you might write next week. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no intention of working on an article which is arbitrarily slated for deletion. If it is removed from the deletion list I may consider expending some of my time and my effort on it. But otherwise not. Sjc 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reasoning for deletion given. Article needs work to discuss business status but should have gotten a stub tag. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason that the nominator gives is that the article doesn't demonstrate how the subject satisfies our WP:CORP criteria for companies, products, and services. Uncle G 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. Would it have killed the nominator to state what you just said? The nominator made several apparently random nominations at the same time, with no stated reason for any of them. This article obviously states its reasons for notability, but apparently the article was not even read. The company may well not meet WP:CORP, but that was not the nomination so lets not pretend it is. 2005 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources given to verifiably show the notability of this website. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources given. I was unable to find anything that would make me think otherwise in the first 20 results on Google. Company website has an Alexa ranking of 946,504.
• Delete per nom. Inadequate article, subject not notable. EdJohnston 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If BackAndLay's entry is deleted then, by the same criteria, all other betting exchanges should be deleted too. The existing sections on betting exchanges - products faciliated by the internet - seems proportionate and balanced. Betfair rightly gets the most coverage, but the minor competitors like this one have their brief place too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.85.183 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-07 00:18:11
  • Wrong. They do not. Wikipedia is not a business directory and "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The criteria are WP:CORP, and each company has to satisfy them on its own merits. BETDAQ#References shows how a company can satisfy them. Companies that do not satisfy them have no place here. Uncle G 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, Its main claim to fame is that its owner has a certain notoriety within the UK betting industry and certainly online among online punters. He is a frequent correspondent with the Racing Post on betting industry-related matters and he has attained a profile out of proportion to the traffic his betting exchange appears to drive. I maintain the entry is worth preserving as stub, as the website might acquire more significance over time. Right now, its main claim to fame is that it is possibly the only totally unfunded betting exchange start-up on the web.
• Delete No sign of meeting WP:Corp. Not a notable betting exchange (yet). Catchpole 20:26, 11 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.