Deletion of Samvo Group (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Cunard. With regard to subject-specific guidelines, the Bloomberg article is extensive and clearly satisfies . The Telegraph article does not go into as much detail, but still satisfies  and thus . I also consider Cunard's third source, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1597094/back-room-hong-kong-bookies-go-global-thanks-online-betting this article from the SCMP, and https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/nach-hafstrafe-fuer-sapina-staatsanwaltschaft-rechnet-mit-anklagen-gegen-profi-fussballer-a-763699.html this German article from the Spiegel significant and reliable sources —  (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 . I can nevertheless see why its Wikipedia article was AfDed, given its current state
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGCRIT||WP:ORGDEPTH||WP:ILLCON||WP:NCORP)