Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision Song Contest 2006 bookmaker odds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest 2006 bookmaker odds

Not really encyclopedic. The main contest article can easily note who the favourites were - A comprehensive listing isn't needed. It's all biased as it only uses certain bookmakers, and it's kind of original research for the fact the article creator used averages from the bookmakers. Wikipedia isn't one authors compilation of odds, sadly. Esteffect 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Michalis Famelis 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:No original research. -- saberwyn 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We don't know how the bookmakers' research methodology in order to get those odds. Who ever thought that Finland would win?

Not the bookmakers...

• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, and Wikipedia is not a betting exchange. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mmmm, taste the cruft! Paddles 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Corporal 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Neurillon 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Uncke Herb!!! 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it was correctly compiled data it would still not qualify as encyclopedic content.--Jsone 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though I'd settle for a partial merging into one of the Eurovision song contest articles. Why?
  • The information is useful, because it provides a source from which what actually happened may be compared with what was expected to happen. A similar thing can be seen in the appearance of entensive poll information on election articles.
  • It isn't really original research. On the policy page it is stated that "an edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments". Done well, this table should offer easily verifiable information, and if properly justified in its source selection, can not be accused of advancing a biased opinion. Bookmakers are reputable sources information on pre-competition expectations, because it impacts their business directly if they mess up.
  • The betting exchange comment does not apply, because this information is being offered after the competition, where it can no longer change.
  • While perhaps uninteresting to american readers, to UK readers, the Eurovision contest was a major media event - this information isn't cruft. --Fangz 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that I, the nominator, are English and a "big fan" (if that's possible) of the contest. So the ignorance-of-subject doesn't apply, at least not for myself. Esteffect 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gambler's guide. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• PLEASE keep The information is invaluable for Eurovision fans. I know of no other place where this information is kept. Dmn € Դմն 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Your comment is actually an argument/justification for deleting it. WP is not a repository for knowledge or information that isn't recorded anywhere else. Paddles 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My comment is actually a vote for keeping it. IMO WP:NOT is used by those who are too lazy to decide whether articles should stay on a case-by-case basis and by those with a lack of vision. Dmn € Դմն 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If the info is verifiable through adequate citations, much of the info could be merged with the main article, albeit to a limited extent as such information is really encyclopedically unimportant. --Michalis Famelis 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The only one who would find this interesting is indeed a bettor. I'll list why I think it should be deleted:
  • Pro: 'valuable' information for bettors

       'valuable' information to predict the winners and perhaps give a temporary ranking

• • Cons: Statisticly speaking, the bookmakers have 'lost' the battle. They only managed to predict

        the winner 2 times out of 5. And I like to see some references for that.
        Secondly: the bookmakers are out for the money. They don't care who wins, they just want to 
        earn profit. If a lot of people think that Greece will win, they will set a lower odd for  
        them, but that doesn't make Greece a winner. The odds could be wrong, because the 'market'   
        thinks someone else will win.
        Thirdly: why do we need such a page? It could encourage betting and some people will think 
        that the bookmakers are "accurate". And what does it have to do with Eurovision? Predicting 
        the winner? If bookmakers are so 'smart' in predicting the winner, how come they always 
        make a profit? Shouldn't they be bankrupt if they were always right? Come on! Delete it... 
        BETTING IS WRONG!

And making average of bets? How can you make an average between odds!!!!

• • • Betting is perfectly legal in my country. Dmn € Դմն 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic.--Peta 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.