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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete I agree with your assessment. Given that they have done exactly nothing up to this point, I suspect they're just using Wikipedia for free advertising (given their incredibly generic name). Even if that isn't the case, the article can always be re-added if they ever meet
WP:NCORP.
DeVosMax [
contribs •
talk •
created media ] 06:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 07:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems obvious that it's an official national lottery provider; this isn't some random pop-up scam, but a lottery which features around 4,000 lottery terminals, sells scratch games, and has national televised coverage of its drawings going back a few decades. Needs some fill-in for sure since it's a new spin-off, but it's obvious it's notable and in no way a
WP:PROMO. This would be like deleting the
National Lottery (United Kingdom) or
Powerball articles. Nate•(
chatter) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Mrschimpf, please refer to
WP:ATA and provide policy specific reasoning as to why the article should be kept instead of saying
I Like It. Unambiguously the topic fails
WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy
WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are
WP:RS, the coverage must be
significant and must be independent of the subject i.e.
WP:INDY. We don't see the organization crossing this required threshold.
Chirota (
talk) 11:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The items contained in the spin-off itself didn't lose their notability the moment it occurred, and burnished the notability of TLC; that's not how WP:N works for corporate spin-offs. Also please don't refer to yourself as a 'we' in a nomination discussion where you're the sole nominator. Nate•(
chatter) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete or Draftify. This is a company/organization therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per
WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two.
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, topic fails NCORP.
HighKing++ 18:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Unambiguously the topic fails
WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy
WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are
WP:RS, the coverage must be
significant and must be independent of the subject i.e.
WP:INDY. If you think otherwise, please provide appropriate reasonings.
Chirota (
talk) 11:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter if it is the only company to operate Australian Government State licences to operate lotteries across Australia. The subject fails Wikipedia's policy of inclusion for companies.
Chirota (
talk) 11:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
What I am struggling to understand is the inclusion of
lotterywest, the counterpart to The Lottery Corporation in the Western Australian jurisdiction, into Wikipedia with no issue. The inclusion of
Jumbo Interactive, a reseller of lotteries licenced by The Lottery Corporation, with no issue.
The Lottery Office that resells overseas lotteries into Australia, no issue. But The largest licence provider of lotteries in Australia with a large retail and online presence, large taxation contributor to state governments, notability for the largest wins for powerball and oz lotto in the nation , a history stretching back through major corporations:
Tabcorp;
Tatts Group,
Nsw Lotteries;
Golden Casket etc etc, there is suddenly a huge issue.
Mantuku (
talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Signal Crayfish: that user has not nominated this article or participated. Why should the article be deleted or salted? I'm curious about your participation in this and other debates, as a user who suddenly started participating in AfDs after a minimal number of edits.
Deus et lex (
talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The reasons provided by Nate and Mantuku are not policy based. The subject's notability can't be defended against Wikipedia's relevant policy
WP:NCORP. If you feel otherwise, just cite the policies against which this organization is notable.
Chirota (
talk) 11:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Chiro725: you can't argue for deletion if there is a valid alternative, which I have suggested. Please stop
WP:BLUDGEONing users.
Deus et lex (
talk) 15:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Deus et lex:, If pointing to policies appears
WP:BLUDGEONing to you, you need to read the policy properly before invoking it.
Chirota (
talk) 14:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. There is currently an on-going investigation of
WP:SOCKPUPPETRY at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantuku. There is a high volume of
WP:SPA accounts voting to keep this article, and any close should be based on the strength of the arguments and not a vote count.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
Tabcorp. No evidence that this corporation passes
WP:NCORP. Given the sock accounts, I would recommend deleting the article history to prevent easy re-creation before redirecting.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect or Delete No indication of being notable. Fails
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 06:44, 16 June 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.
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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete I agree with your assessment. Given that they have done exactly nothing up to this point, I suspect they're just using Wikipedia for free advertising (given their incredibly generic name). Even if that isn't the case, the article can always be re-added if they ever meet
WP:NCORP.
DeVosMax [
contribs •
talk •
created media ] 06:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk) 07:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems obvious that it's an official national lottery provider; this isn't some random pop-up scam, but a lottery which features around 4,000 lottery terminals, sells scratch games, and has national televised coverage of its drawings going back a few decades. Needs some fill-in for sure since it's a new spin-off, but it's obvious it's notable and in no way a
WP:PROMO. This would be like deleting the
National Lottery (United Kingdom) or
Powerball articles. Nate•(
chatter) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Mrschimpf, please refer to
WP:ATA and provide policy specific reasoning as to why the article should be kept instead of saying
I Like It. Unambiguously the topic fails
WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy
WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are
WP:RS, the coverage must be
significant and must be independent of the subject i.e.
WP:INDY. We don't see the organization crossing this required threshold.
Chirota (
talk) 11:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The items contained in the spin-off itself didn't lose their notability the moment it occurred, and burnished the notability of TLC; that's not how WP:N works for corporate spin-offs. Also please don't refer to yourself as a 'we' in a nomination discussion where you're the sole nominator. Nate•(
chatter) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete or Draftify. This is a company/organization therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per
WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two.
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, topic fails NCORP.
HighKing++ 18:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Unambiguously the topic fails
WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy
WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are
WP:RS, the coverage must be
significant and must be independent of the subject i.e.
WP:INDY. If you think otherwise, please provide appropriate reasonings.
Chirota (
talk) 11:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter if it is the only company to operate Australian Government State licences to operate lotteries across Australia. The subject fails Wikipedia's policy of inclusion for companies.
Chirota (
talk) 11:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
What I am struggling to understand is the inclusion of
lotterywest, the counterpart to The Lottery Corporation in the Western Australian jurisdiction, into Wikipedia with no issue. The inclusion of
Jumbo Interactive, a reseller of lotteries licenced by The Lottery Corporation, with no issue.
The Lottery Office that resells overseas lotteries into Australia, no issue. But The largest licence provider of lotteries in Australia with a large retail and online presence, large taxation contributor to state governments, notability for the largest wins for powerball and oz lotto in the nation , a history stretching back through major corporations:
Tabcorp;
Tatts Group,
Nsw Lotteries;
Golden Casket etc etc, there is suddenly a huge issue.
Mantuku (
talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Signal Crayfish: that user has not nominated this article or participated. Why should the article be deleted or salted? I'm curious about your participation in this and other debates, as a user who suddenly started participating in AfDs after a minimal number of edits.
Deus et lex (
talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The reasons provided by Nate and Mantuku are not policy based. The subject's notability can't be defended against Wikipedia's relevant policy
WP:NCORP. If you feel otherwise, just cite the policies against which this organization is notable.
Chirota (
talk) 11:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Chiro725: you can't argue for deletion if there is a valid alternative, which I have suggested. Please stop
WP:BLUDGEONing users.
Deus et lex (
talk) 15:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Deus et lex:, If pointing to policies appears
WP:BLUDGEONing to you, you need to read the policy properly before invoking it.
Chirota (
talk) 14:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. There is currently an on-going investigation of
WP:SOCKPUPPETRY at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantuku. There is a high volume of
WP:SPA accounts voting to keep this article, and any close should be based on the strength of the arguments and not a vote count.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
Tabcorp. No evidence that this corporation passes
WP:NCORP. Given the sock accounts, I would recommend deleting the article history to prevent easy re-creation before redirecting.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect or Delete No indication of being notable. Fails
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 06:44, 16 June 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.