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 keep votes appear to be applying a different standard to NCORP. The source analysis is compelling SpartazHumbug! 08:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For WP:NCORP, the company, by revenue, is the third largest of all major sports gaming platforms, only trailing FanDuel and DraftKings, both of which have their own pages. Furthermore, William Hill has a page as well in spite of being a smaller company on a US national scale than BetMGM. BetMGM a major player in its industry in spite of being a rather new organization only founded in 2018, hence why there is not as much information to be found in the crux of the article. When it comes to WP:ORGIND, I did happen to notice there were three sources I included that were purely press releases (sources #2, 13, and 14). I can update those to include third-party sources on the subjects instead in order to comply. Otherwise, I find this company to be relevant and widely advertised enough that it is worth keeping up on Wikipedia. Let me know if there is anything else needed to keep the article up. Otherwise, if anything, I find the subject matter at least worthy of merging with the MGM Resorts International and/or GVC Holdings pages. User:Mattr1198 11:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial industry coverage [18][19], partnerships with sports leagues and teams [20][21][22] (and the other links from above) will pass the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll go through the references soon. So far the sources that have been posted is trivial coverage, churnalism, routine announcements, info related press-releases and other assorted junk that doesn't pass WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CNG no longer applies to these types of article per consensus at WP:N it seems, it is WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* MGM-GVC’s US joint venture named Roar Digital 2-minute read. Routine announcement of partnership. “I am delighted to appoint Matt to the team,” said Greenblatt, who was appointed in October Interview style article. Fails WP:ORGIND.
* [26] Report on a press-conferences. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS.
* [27] Interview style report with direct quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND.
* [28]We are excited to enter into this historic partnership with MLB," MGM Resorts chairman and CEO Jim Murren added in the release From a press-release. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.
* [29]Major League Soccer is proud to partner with MGM Resorts to bring existing and new fans close to our sport in innovative and immersive ways,” said MLS Commissioner Don Garber in a statement Another press-release. WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND
* [30] Routine announcement of partnership. his is an exciting partnership for the BetMGM brand and Roar Digital, helping us reach the widest possible audience of engaged sports fans in the US,” said Roar Digital CEO Adam Greenblatt in the release Another press-release. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.
References 13, 14, 15, 16 are routine announcements of partnership deals. All of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 16 fails WP:ORGIND.
Looking at the references that have been presented in here:
[35]BetMGM chief revenue officer Matt Prevost said in a statement. “We’re eager to launch BetMGM’s gaming offering in Pennsylvania and I can’t think of a better way to kick off our entry into the state than through this monumental partnership. Fails WP:ORGIND
[43] Partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Partnership report. This partnership marks an important moment for BetMGM in the growing U.S. sports betting sector,” MGM Chairman and CEO Jim Murren said in a statement. This is actually from a press-release. Duplicated above.
[44]As we think about the sports market in Colorado, the first team we think of is the Broncos," BetMGM chief marketing officer Matt Prevost said in a phone interview. "Their heritage and success on and off the field occupies a unique place in the Colorado market. Fails WP:ORGIND.
[45] Product launch announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance
[46] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP. according to a Tuesday news release
[47](These investments) demonstrates our continued commitment to positioning BetMGM as a leader in sports betting and iGaming,” Hornbuckle said during the call. “We believe BetMGM will allow us to more frequently engage with our guests and drive deeper loyalty to the MGM brand Product launch. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as an interview style article.
[48]We know everyone is eager to get out of their homes and add some fun into their calendars,” said David Tsai, president of MGM Resorts’ Midwest Group. “We are committed to raising the bar in delivering unique and entertaining experiences.” Fails WP:ORGIND.
[49]All of us at MGM Resorts are proud to welcome the Raiders and the NFL to Las Vegas,” said MGM Resorts CEO and president Bill Hornbuckle. “We look forward to providing Raiders fans a world-class sports betting and entertainment experience, both in our BetMGM Sportsbooks and digitally, through the BetMGM mobile app Fails WP:ORGIND. Another routine interview style article.
The references offered in the article are mostly press-releases. More than 80%. The ones offered here as proof of notability clearly indicate company operations in forming partnerships and joint ventures in a whole of sports companies that are looking to provide sport betting on their premises. Not a single one of them proves that the company is notable. They are junk. They are not coverage. They fail WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 as paid for article for a company that has a large advertising account. It is a complete crock. scope_creepTalk 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom amd thanks for the detailed breakdown of the sources. We can’t have articles based on press releases and churnalism crap like this. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Scopecreep's excellent analysis of the sourcing. Draftify might be an option, to allow someone to find good solid sources which go in-depth about the company, but I couldn't, due to all the churnalism.Onel5969TT me 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is unreasonable to dismiss news reports from major news outlets like the BBC and Financial Times as routine. They are reported in such sources because the company is considered significant by major news sources, it therefore satisfies GNG. Hzh (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:NCORP were using as the notability policy here, as it is applicable to company articles, per consensus. scope_creepTalk 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially nonsense and a misinterpretation of NCORP. The FT article [51] for example is a quite detailed article, hardly what you called a routine announcement, but I'm sure you'd picked a quote and claimed that it not independent, ignoring that fact that articles do need to provide quote in their article even with independent analysis. There are plenty of other sources like that, for example [52]. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious. Hzh (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the FT article to comment on that in particular, but the Yahoo article you mention in your comment is bylined to Zacks Equity Research, which is an investment advice company. That whole article is basically a disguised ad - right under the graph there's a whole paragraph about how Zacks recommends holding the stock. I wouldn't exactly call that independent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to accuse news site of running disguised ad on companies they write on without clear evidence, Whatever you may think, there are plenty of articles on various aspects of the company, for example articles that covers its controversies - [53][54] and more. The deletion rationale basically shows a failure of BEFORE. Hzh (talk)
The evidence is clear, you've just decided to ignore everything I wrote. The byline is not to a staff writer at Yahoo Movies. It's to an investment advice company, Zacks Equity Research. So no, a news site didn't write about BetMGM, a news site reprinted a piece by an investment advice company, Zacks Equity Research. The content, written by Zacks, literally contains a paragraph stating that Zacks recommends that people buy BetMGM. That is not independent, that is promotional. It is ad copy pretending very hard to be journalism. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You see what you want to see, such argument is pointless. In any case, there are plenty of articles on the company, the assessment for notability is on the sources that are out there, so far I haven't seen a good reason for deletion, the so-called analysis of the sources is dubious to say the least, for example the FT is certainly not routine announcement when it includes research analysis not found in routine announcement, and I only look at a few of those given, indicating that blithe dismissal of the sources is faulty. Also the number of sources I can see out there on the company renders such exercise useless, as I said, no BEFORE. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You see what you want to see - it is absolutely rich for you to be accusing me of this considering your inability acknowledge anything I wrote. Or do you actually that think Zacks Equity Research is a name for a human writer at Yahoo Movies? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an extremely long list of links is not the same as a coherent rationale. There are a couple actual arguments against the credibility of sources, surrounded by Calling coverage "routine" doesn't make sense for, say, the BBC article -- is it "routine" because the BBC routinely covers businesses? Is it "routine" because the BBC routinely writes articles about joint ventures? Can BBC articles be used to establish notability for anything at all, since they're known to "routinely" write articles about stuff? Are they an unreliable source? If so, we should have a discussion about that. The idea that an article loses its credibility the second it mentions a quote from the subject seems, at a minimum, quite heterodox. jp×g 06:03, 14 December 2020 (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.