Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships

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 was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships

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

Non-Notable student debating competition - on a Google search top 2 hits are WP. No GNews hits, one minor Google Books hit, no Google Scholar hits. Seems that there is not much coverage outside specialist debate sites and blogs; does not seem to have it's own website. Not sure that the page meets WP:V as all the post 2002 information is un-sourced and given the lack of third party coverage also think it fails WP:GNG along with WP:ORG and WP:CLUB guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, there are a couple of hits in Google new archives. Here's one that says they are "One of the world's largest debating tournaments, the Australs are second only in size to the World Universities Debating Championship". Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment - looks as if there may be plenty of sources for this, see this google page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to careful here - the Australs are a different competition - a regional one - the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships are only open to Australian universities - when you do the same search but with quotes you only get two hits - one from Scoop.co.nz - which is talking about the Australs and the other looks like a 'Diary' saying when the event runs.Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's rationale says it all. A search for sources indicates no significant coverage outside the very narrow world of university student debating. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep- I think it has enough notability, even if most of the sources are just local papers and such. The google search is also probably suffering from poor use of search terms (as the IV is often referred to as "easters" or an abbreviated or shortened version of the title. I think a more thorough search would easily reveal enough sources. For eg, http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=easters+debating+tournament&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= suggests that there are probably plenty of sourced to be foundJJJ999 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the claim of losts - if you do a google.com.au lookup for "easters debating tournament" (with the quotes) - you get 4 hits - two from Macquarie University Debating Society, one from a live journal and the last from a site that looks like it scraps WP content judging by the "Note: Some content may be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" message at the bottom Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I'm pretty sure your use of terminology is getting in the way of your searches. a search of Easters "debating tournament" comes up with far more hits: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=easters+%22debating+tournament%22&start=270&sa=N or http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Easter+%22novice+debaters%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= comes up with 64. Using quotes in this case is just splitting up hundreds (possibly thousands) of website hits because of inconsistent use of vocab (the tournament has no real consistent name, and is mostly referred to as "Easters" which is obviously problematic for a google search with quotes, which is why my initial one doesn't use one). I don't have time to search over the internet right now, indeed it may not even be on the internet. But my gut feeling is a national competition with over 400 participants each year (not including organisers or adjudicators) is probably notable, and if effort is put in sources will invariably be found... I tried to look at the Monash debating website to grab some newspaper links I remembered seeing, but (as chance would have it) it seems to be down right now. There's certainly enough doubt that this should be kept and given time to improve at any rate.JJJ999 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my terminology was trying to filter out the 'noise' - to find sources that cover the event. Most of the page hits on the above searches are from Uni debate clubs or Uni's themselves; nothing that you could say is independent and nothing significant. There is a big difference from being probably notable to actually being notable - an event may want to be notable, but if know one outside the event is writing or talking about it, it fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely showing that your proof of it's lack of notability is not useful. Even the 2 searches above I used fail because they limit the search to people who refer to it as a "debating tournament" rather than say a "debating Intervarsity" or "debating IV" or "debating weekend" or "Easters IV" or "Easters tournament" or maybe (as it is actually refered to) "Easters" and then the word "debating" somewhere on the page. There is no proof being presented one way or the other, and no effort has been made by anyone with time to really explore the issue. Based on having some knowledge of the event, I think it probably is notable and has some coverage somewhere (not that it necessarily needs to in order to be notable under wikipedia guidelines). With that in mind, it should be kept, and effort made to improve it, since the premise of the opening post (that there is nothing on google) is wrong.JJJ999 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree that he premise of nom is wrong. It seems to me that if you have to hunt for coverage in the way you are proposing; ie by changing the search term to "Easters tournament" (neither of those words appears in the article title) then you are admitting that finding "verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large, to support a claim of notability." (from WP:NRVE) is going to be hard if not impossible and that being the case it fails the WP:GNG. The easiest way to deal with this is to find the coverage rather than debate (no pun intended) how to find it. Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an argument for changing the name of the title. I explained why "Easters tournament (which does return quite a few ghits- not the be all or end all btw) is a misleading measureJJJ999 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that sources can be found to establish the notability of the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships (or any other name that may be more appropriate) I would not have a problem with moving the article to the Article Incubator, however as far as I can see what coverage does exist is limited to specialist debate sites and blogs and significant independent coverage of the tournament may just not exist. Codf1977 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, thanks for your permission. What we have here is an article which nobody has made a real effort to find sources on (both of us included), about an event that is of sufficient size that you would imagine sources to exist, and which no other editors on this discussion have expressed a firm opinion. In that light, the answer is not to send it to editing hell, but to leave it for the natural process, perhaps tag it so sources are added, and come back a year from now and see where things stand (perhaps wait for more opinions). You can't start an AfD based on a faulty search as your only evidence it should be deleted, and then when that search is proven unhelpful to turn around and say "prove it's notable then, or have it deleted". Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I don't have time to go searching right now, and nobody else is paying attention to this AfD, so it seems clear the solution is to just tag it (maybe) and let organic change happen.JJJ999 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent the discussion. At least one other editor firmly believes this article should be deleted (me). I have also searched for, and found zero, reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent me either - I have made an effort to find sources. It is either notable or not and if independent reliable sources can't be found to support it's notability then it should be deleted. As for my suggestion to move the article to the Article Incubator it was a good faith suggestion to help an article that (IMO) does not currently meet the polices of WP, I am sorry you did not take it that way. Codf1977 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed that your 1 line opinion, based on a faulty search, was no longer germane... apparently you've seen some sort of evidence since then which shows no notability... please, share it with us... because a quick glance across some of the searches I highlighted show it is covered by various prestigious universities in their news bulletins... if this were some crappy local thing run by a handful of people in their spare time, I don't think they'd mention it. But again, I don't have time to go digging into all this.JJJ999 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University-published news bulletins do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Now I can't conclusively prove a negative (ie I can't prove there is no notability or that no sources exist). But I can't find any news coverage, any books, any periodicals, etc. No-one else can either. In light of that, the article fails fundamental wikipedia policies (WP:N, WP:V) and must be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure you've looked, given your initial post wasn't even using the correct google searches. I don't see what has changed since then. You've searched "easters" and "debating" in all those things? I doubt it. Nor have I to be fair, but to say "nobody has time to find evidence, it must be deleted" is simply false, and your suggestion university newsletters and bulletins are not reliable or useful sources is simply false.121.45.215.175 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think you are getting a little silly - there are no correct or incorrect google searches - I looked in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar for "Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships" trying to find sources showing that it is notable, you recommended other search terms I looked at them, however they (as explained at the time) are from sources that are not independent. It should not need me to explain the reason why "university newsletters and bulletins" are not reliable sources for demonstrating notability however I will - A University or Debate Club who sends (or has sent) a team to the event, can not be seen to be impartial in judging the importance of the Championships. It is also not the case that anyone is saying "nobody has time to find evidence, it must be deleted" - what is the WP norm is that if after the attention of a AfD the notability of a subject can't be established by independent reliable sources it grounds for a article to be deleted, or moved to the Article Incubator.Codf1977 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Nobody has time, out of the 3 people casually checking this AfD, and the only reason I even know it's been nominated is because you told me the week I happened to be checking my account. I actually have done almost no editing on this page, and I think those who have probably would mount a decent defense of it. Let's give them that time. 2) Nothing is impartial in that sense, but Universities are not the clowns you think they are, and they don't just publish any of crap their clubs do. In fact the Harvard University paper is incredibly famous and respected.JJJ999 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is not an attack requiring a defence. If you or anyone can provide significant independent coverage of the event, I will gladly withdraw the nom (I have done it before - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maryum Jameelah (3rd_nomination)).

2) I do not think "Universities are clowns", however they make use of PR to make themselves look good - like all businesses - that is why they can not be used as a gauge of how notable the event is. Codf1977 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Mkativerata, who I think says it best: "A search for sources indicates no significant coverage outside the very narrow world of university student debating." Thus, neither notable nor verifiable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.