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 redirect to Crown Resorts. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrownBet[edit]

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

CrownBet is a JV of Crown Resorts. Crown Resorts may be notable but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This article should be deleted because it lacks notability, WP:CORPDEPTH. The references hardly satisfy WP:GNG as they are about routine matters / announcements of the company, PR, offers and a legal issue about advertising which does not make the company notable enough either.

I suspect the page may be an attempt to promote the company's new venture.

Delete" Therefore, I nominate this article to be deleted. Drewziii (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crown Resorts, since the 67% ownership stake makes Crown Resorts, for all intents and purposes, the parent company of CrownBet. Altamel (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. Everything about Crown Resorts is there in Crown Resorts including ownership of CrownBet and controversy. In this case even redirect constitutes promotion of the new brand. It should be deleted until the article can be created independently. The redirect contains only trivial history so not useful by any means. --Drewziii (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the content is already covered in Crown Resorts. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Since it is "the only 100% Australian owned and operated online bookmaker" (there's 14 separate references which confirm that statement, so it must be true), I think it is a likely search term. Since there is nothing to merge, keeping it as a redirect makes sense to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2016 (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.