Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Universities Debating Championship


 * 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 Speedy Keep, per WP:SNOW, POINTy nomination. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Asian Universities Debating Championship
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability and verifiability JJJ999 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Reasons -I personally am an inclusionist, and I believe the content here is useful and worth keeping. I have edited articles positively which are no more notable. However, if you want a page to be included which would be disputable as being within what is technically WP guidelines, then you can't make the argument that any content you don't like won't count, because it fails to meet WP. The whole article technically fails to meet WP, and I am unconvinced the standard Purple and other partisans wish to hold this article to (but only when it comes to content they dislike) could be met by the article itself (not to mention most articles they edit). There have been claims made that content I have added, which is entirely supported, is invalid because sources like the official mailing list of these sites is "not notable or independant", and likewise the pages themselves from either rival tournament. This obviously doesn't make much sense, in light of the rest of the content, which they've decided somehow does meet it (despite no sourcing at all). Well, fine, if that's what they want to hold the article to, the best resolution seems to be an AfD, where we can either scrap the article, or edit out any of the unsourced material as a resolution (ie, all of it). To be clear, if the tournament itself is notable, then such notable tournaments official documents and minutes should likewise be notable, thus I don't see how you can claim they fail notability when being used to reference content you don't like, but attain it when you want to reference content you doJJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The nominator has admitted here (editing under the IP address 122.148.218.27, which he admits he uses on the article's talk page) that he does not in fact think the article should be deleted, but is nominating it to play games as part of a currently ongoing content dispute at the article. It's all detailed on the talk page. The subject is verifiable by the external links. It ideally needs some more sources to verify some aspects of the content, but that's not a reason to delete it. Purple Watermelon (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Liking the article is not the same as meeting WP wiki.JJJ999 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add I don't feel a speedy keep is productive. I think 5 days or discussion may ensure we have some sort of consensus on what is notable in regards to such content, and exactly what the consensus on this sort of thing really is.  At the very least this thing needs a massive overhaul, and to do that an independant party is going to need to see what the consensus on it is.  For that we need an AfD discussion.JJJ999 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article is about regional championships of debating. Every year notable universities from Asia are participating in this championship. These two links (here, and here) shows 4th events of Asian championship, which was hosted by International Islamic University Malaysi.--NAHID 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile these sources as meeting the WP requirements? They are no more notable than the ones rejected for content requirements?  These sources are inherently self-referencing, which seems fine to me in principle provided it is notability, but that seems in dispute.  Or is it just enough to have "alot" of blog references?JJJ999 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Bad faith nom.  Nominator has basically admitted on the talk page that he is only AfDing the article because others disagreed with his addition.  V-train (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worth adding that since Purple has gone out and gotten people to come en masse to support this, it would be nice to hear actual independant voices (you know, people who didn't create the page, like Purple, and ones he didn't call over, like V-train, or the guy whose name indicates quite clearly his support of this IV). Allowing it to go through a 5 day discussion process is productive.  Closing now is not. Whichever Admin has to deal with this page should probably note the massive effort that has already been mobilised to stack this vote and prevent the productive discussion we could be having, as so far all the respondants are either partisans, were told to come here by partisans, or are in the process of alerting more partisans, ie (here or here & here )JJJ999 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've certainly not tried to stack the vote. I asked two people (because they've been involved in a similar dispute before) to look at the article's talk page and see if they wanted to comment there. This was before it was put up for AfD. I've not asked anyone to come to this page. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a meaningless distinction as you well know, because the effect will be the same. Nor is getting a bunch of people who you know "forming consensus" as you were asked to do.JJJ999 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're only people who I know have an interest in the issue (becuase of one similar discussion last year). But they're indivduals who have their own minds and will weigh up the issues on their merits. I thought their insights might have been helpful in the content discussion. But I don't know if they'll agree with me until and unless they choose to comment. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * JJJ999, editors are bold to discuss with other editor about any WP matter. User:Niaz is a member and creator of Wikiproject Debating. So he might be helpful in developing this article. This doesn't mean we are stacking vote. And also please do not add spam link as reference--NAHID 08:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When 4 people are alterted within 30 mins of an AfD opening, and every vote is for "speedy keep" most objective people would have to ask serious questions about a stack, and I think it makes giving a speedy keep from such votes a bad idea. I am not necessarily advocating the removal of your article, I think it is an open question, but I have serious questions about the claims made regarding notability.  From a purely interest level I enjoy and see value in it, but that isn't the same as meeting WP guidelines.  I want an explanation of how this article meets those guidelines, and hopefully an outcome which creates a clear basis for the addition of future content.  Can you explain to me why there is a double standard on content?JJJ999 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get 4 people from. 2 people were altered about the content dispute before the AfD opened (of whom only 1 has voted here), and 1 person (who hasn't been here yet) was altered after. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. JJJ999 is upset over a content dispute about whether one sentence should be added to the article, and is annoyed that two editors (me and Purple Watermelon) disgaree with him. He's admitted that he thinks the subject is notable, the dispute is simply over whether one sentence is adequately verifiable. Nominating the article for deletion in these circumstances is bizarre. Singopo (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per the articles for deletion page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. WilliamH (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, WP:POINTY nom. After reading the talk page linked in the first vote, I am convinced this user is attempting to use AfD as a means of getting revenge on those who disagree with her/him. That is not what AfD was intended for, ever. An article is either appropriate for inclusion or not; saying that you'll nominate an article for deletion if the person doesn't admit you're right is POINTY and uncivil. Redfarmer (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. AUDC is one of the two major regional debating championships in Asia (beside All-Asians) and notable by its own right. It is silly to question about it's variability when so many strong sources are present online (Please help yourself with Google!). WUDC, EUDC, Australs, All-Asians and AUDC - these five tournaments are most popular among university level students and it is unfortunate to see such nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  13:54, 19 May 2008 (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.