Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetMGM
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
— User:JPxG, 06:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)