Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CasinoWebScripts

CasinoWebScripts

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

I see nothing here in the way of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" demanded by WP:GNG. We have a press release, an advertisement, the company's own website, passing mention in a blog post, a directory entry/blog post, a blog post and a press release.

Finally, we have this blog post. Now, the author of the article, in an edit summary, notes that material from the same site is used in other articles, and that is correct. But the WP:WAX argument is invalid. The fact that gamingzion.com is cited elsewhere does not imply it is a reliable source. Indeed, by its own admission, it's a self-published venue with no kind of editorial oversight, as the term is conventionally understood.

Given the lack of usable sources, deletion seems the only valid option. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]