Talk:Sportsbook.com

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sportsbook.com article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Customer complaints

I copied and pasted comments from me, Fadeintoyou, and 2005 from my talk page below. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your deletion of my contribution.Fadeintoyou (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at first it seemed as if you were out to discredit them. Perhaps that was a bit of a premature action by me. Let's let others have time to see it and comment on it. If you want to make comments or questions about the article then see Talk:Sportsbook.com ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution was primarily three inappropriate links to a non-RS, and a long laundry list. I removed it again. If the user wants to start a discussion on the talk page to properly source complaints about the company, fine, but we aren't here to promote somebody's website. 2005 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is not a reputable source? Sportsbook Review is the primary independent watchdog of the on-line sports betting industry. They're not reputable? The only person shilling a website here is you. If you wish to mediate this, we can. Otherwise, stop vandalizing my edits.Fadeintoyou (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes link is fine, and that is included now. Linking to the homapege of sportsbookreview.com is not appropriate at best. Then including two other external links is spam. As above, if you want to discuss complaints about the company, find a link as reliable as the forbes one, and write text that is objective about the situation. The long list of the companies websites is not standard style for company articles. We can say they own many other websites and name a couple but we aren't making a list of everything the company owns. 2005 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you don't like the truth getting out about your company, but SBR is as reputable a source as there is. The listing of all the websites run by Sportsbook.com is absolutely relevant. Once again, we can either mediate or you can desist using Wikipedia to spread pro-Sportsbook.com propaganda.Fadeintoyou (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fadeintoyou, please stop spamming the article. If you continue to edit war and spam, I'll ask at the administrator's noticeboard that you be blocked from editing. Rray (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume good faith and Calm down this has nothing to do with editors trying to defend Sportsbook.com, but rather with edits, if they follow a Neutral point of view and are Verifiable, please read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT and WP:V, if you feel sportsbookreview.com is a Reliable sources please state why, if you feel you want another opinion you can goto the reliable sources noticeboard if you want a third party review of the source. also if you have any association with sportsbookreview.com please read our Conflict of interest guildlines. thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no affiliation with SBR. SBR is the only thing close to legitimate oversight in the online gaming industry. Anyone that is not aware of them has zero business editing this article or any other related to online gaming. So it's spamming then if someone references Morningstar in discussing a mutual fund? The real reason these people are vigilantly squelching my edits is that they have a pro-Sportsbook.com agenda and are using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. This company has serious negative issues associated with it and to make zero mention of them while allowing bullies to stifle the information strikes against the very essence of Wikipedia: spreading truth.Fadeintoyou (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just want to say that the policy is that verifiability is more important than truth. SBR's problem is that it doesn't pass the standard set for a reliable source. If you disagree with that, please provide evidence that it is reliable. The fact that it's the *most* reliable doesn't make it reliable enough. There is serious liability about repeating random complaints without sources. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky81682 (talk • contribs)

Google News deems SBR "verifiable". Is that good enough for you fascists?Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please control yourself. This is no place to act like a fascist. Articles must follow guidelines established by consensus, and individual articles also are subject to consensus os editors. Then also, just because something is in google news does not make it verifiable. 2005 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shilling, buddy. It's noble work you're doing. I'll keep spreading the truth about your criminal organization. Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I understand why you wouldn't care for a site you believe is ripping people off, and you may be right I don't know, But we can't just guess at these things, a verifiable site like Forbes.com is perfectly fine, anything you write where you use them as a source if fine, no matter how bad it is for the company in the article about them but it must be reliably sourced, if you want to go beyond that you must source it, SBR's doesn't work for the reasons Ricky81682 outlined, calling people here that they must be working for a "criminal organization" is laughable and is an outright lie. You're not going to find many people that will want to help you when you act like that, so please don't! ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removal

I removed the prod template from the article for two reasons:

The article isn't unsourced. It contains one source and needs more. The unreferenced tag has been included, so improvements CAN be made.
The article isn't particularly negative. Being negative isn't a valid deletion reason anyway, but feel free to take the article to AfD if you think the subject is non-notable.

Rray (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is plenty notable, as it is one of the biggest Internet sports books around. We can certainly improve the article but there is no reason to send it to AFD. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gambling" firm, not "gaming". "Gaming" is playing GTA.

Someone labeled the link to online gambling as online gaming. That's wrong. The gambling industry sometimes uses the term "gaming" for promotional purposes, but that usage is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. --John Nagle (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insert your opinions in the encyclopedia. The proper term is gaming: [1] and [2]. Please don't alter the page again. 2005 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the use of the term is not restricted to the industry itself. It is used by the financial industry and in many cases the legislation enabling these activities. The use predates playing GTA. Gaming is an industry and business that supports the gaming or gambling activities of individuals. Gaming is a term with several uses and meanings. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal difficulties

I'm a little concerned about citing Bettinginfos.at for the statement that "No papers were ever served on Sportsbook.com or Sportingbet, and the case never went to court." It puts them a quite a positive light (and make the NJ officials look like they weren't serious). Does anyone know of a better source? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great source, but whether its a positive light or not is irrelevant. There are several mentions online that the suit never was pursued, so if something from seven years from now is mentioned, the conclusion should be mentioned. Mentioning the suit seems okay, but basically nothing happened, so we need to say that if we mention the suit. A weak source that is supported by others is better than no source. Also, the cited article is not particularly positive as the title is "Will legacy issues scupper Sportingbet deal?" 2005 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem is that I cannot a single word in the company's Regulatory Filings about a notice problem. I mean, Sportingbet PLC is a publically traded British company and the only news related to New Jersey is limited. In fact, their January 2, 2002 Q3 results clearly mentions having receiving the papers (there could a constructive notice versus actual notice claim though) and plan to defend it, which is quite different. I'm busy tomorrow but I'll look into the actual litigation if I can and we can cite the actual case results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noyice issue is trivia. The case never went to court so that is all that needs mention is it is mentioned. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "the case was dismissed because there was no notice given" and "the case was settled/dismissed because a legal argument." It sounds more like the latter. Again, I'll look into the actual cases on Lexis when I have some free time, in a few days. --Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all related to the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006", the arrest and release of the head of Sportingbet, and the offshoring of Sportingbet's US-facing operations to some dummy operation in Antigua, then Malta. See Online gambling for background. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBR

Does anyone have a problem with SBR's page on Sportsbook.com being included in the external links? 96.238.40.131 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link has been discussed at length here, and there's quite a bit of opposition to its inclusion. Rray (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do YOU oppose it? 96.238.40.131 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not him, but it is an unsigned review. There are literally thousands of gambling portals online with such unsigned reviews. At this point, I believe no wikipedia gambling articles link to any subjective review pages, so there obviously is no reason to link to a small site's unsigned review regarding this particular gambling company. This, and similar articles, deal with factual presentations, not opinions or grades of the various companies. You have a single purpose interest here. others of us are concerned with the consistency of all the gambling articles, so its not a matter of dropping one link, but how that impacts several dozen other articles. 2005 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to objective information about the company and verified news releases, in accordance with WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.40.131 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review, by definition, is subjective. An anonymous review on a site full of anonymous reviews isn't a valid source or external link. Rray (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any reviews (that I know of) of any online gambling site. There are hundreds, and if we ever did add one, it certainly wouldn't be an anonymous review. Sites like this can be used to cite something mundane like "John Smith acted as celebrity endorser from March 2005 to May 2006", but for subjective opinions on quality, no way. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to objective company information and verified press releases. Content is relevant, neutral and relevant to article.96.238.40.131 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]