Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IONA Debating Circuit

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. The sources provided are either unreliable or refer mainly to something else, and the argument that the article does not meet WP:V requirements has not been adequately dealt with. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IONA Debating Circuit

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

While trying to find WP:RS refs to improve this article, I was staggered by the fact I could find anything. The only Google hits (on the first 3 pages) are from either WP or sites that have scraped content off WP - and has the {{University debating}} template on. No hits on Goolge Books, No hits on Google News, No hits on Google Scholar. I then went and did a google on britishdebate.com for IONA - there are a number of hits all but one are with ref to fees for debates and only one that uses the phrase IONA Circuit this one. I am left to conclude that though the debates may exist, I am not sure the term or name "IONA Debating Circuit" is used outside this article. Codf1977 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even assuming it exists, doesn't pass WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:N, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This a major debating circuit involving a large number of debating competitions, many universities, and hundreds of debaters across 4 of the most successful nations in university debating. Some of the events on the circuit, such as the Oxford and Cambridge IVs and the ESU Mace, are particularly well-known and prestigious events. It may be known by different names (such as the UK and Ireland Universities Debating Circuit), but it's a very major circuit known to debaters around the world. The article alreday has quite a lot of references (although it could do with a few more to verify some of the most recent events). Hammersville (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well if it is called something else, lets get a WP:RS and rename the article accordingly. As for the references judging by the look of them - most are from Primary sources with very few beeing from what could be called WP:RS Codf1977 (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a major event, comparable to an interscholastic athletic tournament - involving major universities and multiple countries. See, for example, this, this, and this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- You are aware that your first link is a Blogspot blog, and your other two are just copies of the Wikipedia article (as they both state at the bottom), right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment - The first one is a Blog, the second one looks like some form of Social Networking site and the third is a copy of the WP page - so none of them can be used to confirm that this actually exists. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy: WP:CLUB, WP:OR. The article's sources don't establish the notability of the subject. No search results on Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar. Google Web returns 19 results, none of which give the impression of providing significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Although the article is rather lengthy, most of its contents appears to be unverifiable original research. Perhaps the article can be renamed and trimmed of WP:OR, or some of its more encyclopedic parts can be merged into another page. — Rankiri (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant third party RS establishing that this is a notable competition.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although no hits on name itself i have found articles about this not specificly mentioning it by that name. i say keep the page just rename it. also being a debater myself i know how hard debating is also i know how little respect we get.`Firl21 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to those so we can know what to rename it to ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the reason for keeping it the fact that it deserves more attention then it is getting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-here is what i found http://hopetobreak.blogspot.com/2010/01/worlds-2010-tab-analysis-which-circuit.html http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Debate Firl21 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those - however the first is a BLOG, and the second looks like an old scraping from WP judging by the Debate Template (see here and here) in March 2008 - what we need relay is some WP:RS coverage and a link to the organisers website perhaps. Codf1977 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the other pages on Statmaster it does indead seem as if they use Wikipedia for their pages. I agree we need a better source then these. I would also add that even if we did accept these they do not prove notability just exsistance. We also need source showing that someone actualy considers this of note, which not even the sources provided in the article seem to do (its so notable they don't even name it once).Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: ' YO YO YO good news. here are some sites i found http://hopetobreak.blogspot.com/2010/01/worlds-2010-tab-analysis-which-circuit.html http://www.freetrafficinfo.com/1031properyexchanges.com/news/World-Universities-Debating-Championship.html http://www.eudcnewcastle09.com/theteam.php "Our team cap is set at 60 (no institutional cap), open reg rules (composite and / or masters teams welcome), with a registration fee of £40 per team (may be subject to remission / discount for non-IONA teams and in cases of extreme financial hardship at institutions)."DIRECTLY REFRENCES IONA i think the page should be named World Schools Debating Championships the iona is a circut in this Firl21 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firl21 (talk • contribs)

Sorry to keep doing this - the first is a BLOG - the one for EUDC 09 where is refs IONA - is talking about fees for teams outside the geographical area (see bit in nom) and the World Schools Debating Championships is for SCHOOLS - this is for Universities.

Nothing I can find or see leads me to believe that the phrase "IONA Debating Circuit" exists in anything like an official capacity in the way the article implies - I can't find an organising committee or official website or the phrase used in any WP:RS. The issue with the artical as it stands is not only that if it's name, it is made up almost initially of un-sourced information, while University Debating is notable, and articles on say the World Championships may attract significant coverage in WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG I frankly doubt, from what I can find, that anything below that level does or will - this is after all a University Club hobby. Codf1977 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://www.freetrafficinfo.com/1031properyexchanges.com/news/World-Universities-Debating-Championship.html does not seem to mention IONA. http://www.eudcnewcastle09.com/theteam.php does say IONA, but it does not say IONA Debating Circuit, so all we can say is that it roves that the use of IONA exists within debating in the UK. Also (and I will again mention this point) even if we did accept these sources as proving the existane of the term, it dose not prove notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent some time looking for debating refs for other articles today - I am still unable to find any WP:RS that support this article - I am of the opinion that is article fails WP:V. Codf1977 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE : I undid this edit by Firl21 because it was inserted into the middle of someone else's comments - I have posted a note on his talk page here that I have done that. Codf1977 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 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.