Talk:Sports betting forums

Please note that the previous discussions of this article have been lost due to FCYTravis deleting the article contrary to Wikipedia policy and as discussed in.

Most editors agree that this article needs work, and all positive contributions would be welcomed, but please don't mindlessly delete the contents of the article just for the sake of it, especially if you have no knowledge of the subject matter. This will simply discourage other editors to work on the article. Thank you. Critic 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no point to this article so it has been redirected to sports betting. Having articles on every topic saying their are forums about the topic is ridiculous.  If you want to slightly encyclopdicly expand the section where it belong in the sports betting article, do so. 2005 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that the article has merit. Sports betting forums involve a particular culture (etiquette, set of rules, hierarchy etc.) that is worthy of encyclopedic discussion. It has been agreed (RfD and Administrators' decision) that the article should "stay" but be cleaned up. At least two members, Critic and Xoloz (an administrator) have expressed their intentions to work on the article. I am also willing to contribute. Given this, imposing your will by deleting the article is unacceptable. Please desist. --Wayniac 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to the stub. Stuff can be added as it's verified and sourced. FCYTravis 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see very little wrong with the complete article to which FCYTravis is objecting. A few sentences have an unduly positive slant ("Another useful aspect...", "it is helpful for members to share their experiences with others..."), but that's still better than weasel wording. In any event, FCYTravis's stub isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article, being as it doesn't say anything except "Sports betting forums are forums for betting on sports." I think the encyclopedia-quality article should be restored. However, I'm just posting my opinion, not reverting; it seems like this page is getting dangerously close to a revert war.

FWIW, it does seem like this article could be subst'ed into either Sports betting or Online gambling; but then one of those articles would have to link into the middle of the other. So it seems perfectly reasonable to have one article on the intersection of the two fields, and have both of the existing articles link to this one with the main template. --Quuxplusone 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What sentences in that article do you consider encyclopedic? Not even one sentence offers encyclopedic information.  The second section in particular is useless: "spam is not popular on most forums"... give me a break.  Wikipedia has articles on Internet forums and on sports betting.  There is zero reason for an article that states the point that some forums focus on sports betting.  If such a ridiculous notion made sense then we should have articles on forums for every topic in the encyclopedia... needlepoint forums, craps forums, rose bush forums, etc etc.  These all exists, and hundreds of thousands more. The arictle was simply a link spam excuse.  Nothing in it deserved to be in the encyclopdia, and certainly not pov about generic netiquette.  The most that should be here is two sentences, with wiki links to sports betting and Internet forums articles, and of course that silly too.  It just should be redirected to the sports betting article.  2005 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly you and FCYTravis are intent on imposing your will. This is regrettable given recent agreement (RfD) that the article be kept but cleaned up. As mentioned, at least three members (including an Administrator) have expressed their intentions to work on the article. Making it a stub is obviously going to deter people from working on it and I'm certain that this is your tactic for side-stepping anAdministrators' recent decision. Is there any need for us to go through all of this again? You lost - move on, and allow us to work on getting this article up to scratch. --Wayniac 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a stub discourages nothing. Why would you say that?  As I said earlier, if someone writes an encylopedic entry that is not trite, then we'd have a different situation facing us.  The principal point though is no justification whatever has been made to say why such a redundant article should appear when the sports betting article now covers this topic.  The only justification again is to link spam.  Why was the presciption not included?  Why was the obviously superior link to the dmoz category replaced with a minor forum link?  It doesn't really matter since there is no encyclopedic entry here.  I have no idea what you think I "lost".  This is not an afd discussion, but rather one about where this content should go.  There is a sportsbetting article.  That is where content on forums should go.  Sports betting is not fundementally different than thousands of other topics where they are discussed on forums. Wikipedia has two articles covering this topic and it certainly needs no more.  This would not be true if someone, basically miraculously, wrotye an encyclopedic entry covering the topic that made it worthy of being spit off.  There is no such content now.  Improve the section in the main article, or create something encyclopedic that *deserves* to stand on its own.  And please, don't bring up the off topic afd again.  This is not about deleting content that mentions sports betting forums.  It is about locating properly and having it written in encyclopedic tone. 2005 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider this massive deletion unhelpful. This article badly needs to be sourced; but removing the assertions that need it will not make that any easier; and unless FCTravis thinks they are wrong, it is no service to the encyclopedia either. Septentrionalis 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of what was removed was trite and self-evident. "Like other internet forums, or indeed, online communities in general, users have various motivations for contributing." Well... ah, yeah, and so what? "Other users will chime in with their opinions." Isn't that assumed in the definition of "Forum"? Way too much unsourced minute detail about what one author feels is done on sports betting forums and way too little basic information - like, what are the most widely known sports betting forums? FCYTravis 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So add that. Septentrionalis 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Popular" forums is POV. The article doesn't need that.  It now links to the dmoz list that includes the largest and most popular forums.  That is appropriate, not a link spam invitation. 2005 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The state of the article as it was is simply a poorly written essay, and simply reintroducing it over and over is not going to be helpful. Nobody here will object to you rewriting the article from a neutral standpoint with sources and citations. If you're not interested in doing that, then what's your issue with just leaving it as a stub for someone to come along and work on later? FCYTravis 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)