Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samvo Group (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samvo 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)

No further reliable sources exist. Fails WP:corp “has received no or very little notice from independent sources.” Existing sources are little more than blog posts. Has not received coverage in multiple RELIABLE secondary sources that are independent of the subject (fails wp:orgcrite). Fails WP:oprigind. Article does not meet guidelines for WP:GNG. GhostDust (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a betting broker, with a history of WP:SPA WP:COI editing both before and after the previous AfD (which closed as no-consensus due to lack of participation, possibly would have been treated like an expired PROD nowadays?). The combination of listings, PR and blog items which serve as the article references (and are as they were at the first AfD) are insufficient, and searches on Samvo Group, SamvoBetBroker. etc. are not finding WP:RS coverage of the firm or of its apparent demise in 2017. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant news coverage. Google news has nothing on them. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think care needs to be taken when using search engines when assessing notability (WP:GOONOTE and WP:HITS), I found the Spiegel and SCMP articles (below) on the last page of my search results on Google News. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Eden, Scott (2014-06-01). "For World Cup, Betting Flows Through Banker-Turned-Bookie". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  This article is an extensive profile of Samvo. The article notes, "The name of the company, Samvo Entertainment Ltd., offers little insight into the business being conducted here, Bloomberg Pursuits will report in Summer 2014 issue. Samvo is a brokerage firm -- a bet brokerage firm -- whose clients are among the richest professional-sports-gambling syndicates in the world. ... Founded a decade ago by a former Hong Kong investment banker named Frank Chan, Samvo acts as a middleman."
2. Kelso, Paul (2012-04-13). "Police raid British bookmaker for third time amid German investigation into match-fixing". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes about Samvo: "A British-registered bookmaker has been searched three times by police in connection with the largest criminal match-fixing inquiry ever undertaken in Europe, Telegraph Sport can disclose." The article provides detailed discussion about the company's background.
3. Spapens, Toine (2021) [2017]. "Match-Fixing". In Nelen, Hans; Siegel, Dina (eds.). Contemporary Organized Crime: Developments, Challenges and Responses. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 138. ISBN 978-3-030-56591-6. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book notes: "Ante Sapina, one of the main suspects in the Bochum case, made a peculiar statement in court claiming that he had fixed matches for gambling company Samvo Entertainment Limited (Der Spiegel 2011). Samvo, based in London but owned by Hong Kong businessman and politician Shung Fai Chan, strongly denied Sapina's story, and no proof to substantiate it could be found. It did transpire, however, that one of Samvo's employees had noticed the predictive value of Sapina's bets and started to copy them for his personal benefit (Spapens 2012)."
  "Spapens 2012" refers to the source: Spapens, T. (2012). Prijs! The Hague: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Samvo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. With regard to subject-specific guidelines, the Bloomberg article is extensive and clearly satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. The Telegraph article does not go into as much detail, but still satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH and thus WP:ORGCRIT. I also consider Cunard's third source, this article from the SCMP, and this German article from the Spiegel significant and reliable sources — WP:ILLCON (which suggests that organisations ought not be considered notable only on the basis of sources covering its criminal conduct) does not apply, as all three discuss more than 'purely' the criminal conduct. The company, on the basis of these sources, passes WP:NCORP. I can nevertheless see why its Wikipedia article was AfDed, given its current state. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (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.