Deletion of BetMGM

Comment: I'll go through the references soon. So far the sources that have been posted is trivial coverage, churnalism, routine announcements, info related press-releases and other assorted junk that doesn't pass 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Substantial industry coverage https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/29389142/probe-opened-las-vegas-bettors-exploit-error-international-baseball-betshttps://www.yogonet.com/international/noticias/2020/07/27/54088-betmgm-wins-dispute-over-past-posted-wagers-at-the-bellagio, partnerships with sports leagues and teams https://www.sportico.com/business/sports-betting/2020/nascar-betmgm-gambling-1234610865/https://frontofficesports.com/team-betting-raiders-betmgm/https://frontofficesports.com/jets-open-betmgm-studio/ (and the other links from above) will pass the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:CNG no longer applies to these types of article per consensus at  it seems, it is CORP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NCORP)

Comment: an extremely long list of links is not the same as a coherent rationale. There are a couple actual arguments against the credibility of sources, surrounded by Calling coverage "routine" doesn't make sense for, say, the BBC article -- is it "routine" because the BBC routinely covers businesses? Is it "routine" because the BBC routinely writes articles about joint ventures? Can BBC articles be used to establish notability for ''anything at all'', since they're known to "routinely" write articles about stuff? Are they an |unreliable source? If so, we should have a N|discussion about that. The idea that an article loses its credibility the second it mentions a quote from the subject seems, at a minimum, quite heterodox
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RSN)