Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortuna Entertainment Group

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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. Star Mississippi 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Entertainment Group

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Spam. Remove according to WP:NCOPR, and reliable sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no spam. This is a legitimate article about an existing corporation. See the company listing: Veřejný rejstřík a Sbírka listin - Ministerstvo spravedlnosti České republiky (justice.cz) https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/rejstrik-firma.vysledky?subjektId=1145305&typ=PLATNY Also try looking it up in Google. Zleeczech (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

single purpose account is here. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article does not meet WP:NCORP, as it does not have multiple independent sources with significant coverage. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not spam at all, though it became a bit more promotional than it should be after this edit. Former constituent of the major stock index of Czechia, zero chance that it doesn't meet NCORP, though the sources may be a bit harder to find since it operates in non-English-speaking countries. See WP:LISTED and WP:SBEXT. Toohool (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm usually the first to suggest deleting corporate spam, but this company is large enough to sponsor the first-tier Czech National Football League. I'm not an expert on WP:N and WP:RS but it seems highly unlikely this company doesn't pass them. Jdcooper (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1, 2, 3, 4 examples of independent, non-trivial coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jdcooper no, they are not matching Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The source should be reliable, independent and should have original non-trivial coverage, and not just one news about sponsorship. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? Only one of those is about sponsorship, the other three are about the company changing it's CEO (and that was only from a 2 minute search, on Google News, from the last couple of months). How is that trivial coverage? What coverage are you looking for? Jdcooper (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jdcooper another one with CEO you mentioned is prohibited on wikipedia as it its https://www.newstream.cz/zpravy-z-firem/fortunu-povede-victor-corcoran-prichazi-z-irske-sazkovky-paddy-power a paid article (company news or PR press release if you wish). The style is also press-releasy and the author is some generic name. Also, the news is about the new CEO and doesn't cover the significance of the company. https://www.gamingintelligence.com/people/moves/163055-fortuna-entertainment-names-victor-corcoran-as-new-ceo/ this one is also a non-declared press-release. It's easy to spot it. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand what is needed for WP:NCORP 24.105.83.215 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A.WagnerC the sources provided above aren't reliable at all. Just WP:MILL. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP above appears to be another of his socks. Toohool (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above; the sources given are just trivial mentions. I don't see much to help GNG. Why use a sock to delete an article, they're usually for ganging-up to keep an article. Who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content" - original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References that rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert of WP:NCORP in no way but -- based on what you see as weaknesses -- I've added more reliable, external sources for the citations and slightly adjusted the text where needed. Zleeczech (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you've added meet NCORP either. Take a read of WP:ORGIND particularly. Adding in references based entirely on company press releases and announcements has no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 1 November 2022 (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.