Talk:Statistical association football predictions

External links (discussion moved from User talk:Phil Bridger)
(This discussion relates to whether we should have external links to web sites that provide a statistical prediction service, such as scibet.com. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC))

As I stated earlier, removing spam links is an excellent practice - as long as they are spam links indeed. Soccer prediction niche has a lot of these, and there are only two (to my knowledge) who have a real algorithmic backbone: scibet and accuscore. While writing the article I contacted many websites. The first provided a wealth of information and sources, the 2nd sent me a blurry response, the rest hardly remembered how the function derivative looks like. In spite that, I believe that accuscore should be there as well (Yahoo trusts its predictions, no reason for us not to), and generally any other website in the niche, that has something real to offer. Averio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of external links in Wikipedia is not to recommended web sites for having something real to offer in terms of performing an activity such as statistical football prediction, and most certainly not to thank anyone for providing information, but to link to places where people can read more about the topic of our article. This link does not do that. The relevant policy is WP:EL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Quoting the guidelines: There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
 * Is the site content accessible to the reader? Yes
 * Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes, even without the Publications section - note their charts for every game, these are the attack/defense ratings that the article speaks about
 * Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? Yes


 * With regards to accuscore, the only thing that stopped me from adding them from the beginning is the violation of "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". Yet, Wikipedia among other things is used for initial market research, and IMHO it is important to reference sites that are dealing with the topic. For example, if I look at the Bookmakers article I would expect to find organizations that play a major role in that market.


 * Further on, removing/adding links, or fighting over it is a pointless task, and I would rather see people expand the article than reverting link additions. Averio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to have a good-faith discussion about this when you keep pre-emting the issue by re-adding the link. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thus especially when your're doing the same, i.e. keep pre-emting the issue by removing the links. I'm actually surprised you didn't remove the entire article and the Wikipedia itself, until we discuss things out. Averio (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From External links: "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at External links/Noticeboard. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)