Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine


 * 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 No consensus.  Maxim (talk)  13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Erskine
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not the most serious of Wiki users, nor do I have a vast understanding of the rules. However, this is a clear glory page for a lonely 50 year old man, whether he wrote it himself or not. There are, in Australia alone, I suspect 100 different debating tournaments including IV's, internal comps and schools comps. Each of them has a different "founder" and each of them, each year, has a different "convenor" which is the same thing as a founder, and involves the same amount of work, just the "founder" did it first. Likewise, there are many debating Presidents, every year there is a different one for the dozens of Australian based organisations. Nor is world schools a particularly prestigious one, on the contrary it is panned as a ridiculous and standardless competition by serious debaters, and is smaller, less representative and of less import than many other debating tournaments. It is comical that this guy should have his own page. If we allowed everyone with like crednetials worldwide their own pages you'd have more debating figures than US political representatives. This appears a clear deletion. The fact that he, among thousands of others each year, mooted for his uni once is likewise unnoteworthy. I support a page for the organisation, or tournament, and he gets a mention on all those pages, but he has not done anything worthy of his own page. He is not even famous within the debating community, merely a small subset of the debating community (the middle aged people who run the national schools comp. 9/10ths of ACT debaters and adjudicators have no idea who he is, and couldn't care either)  *Speedy Delete- Jembot


 * I believe wether it for the persons glory or not it is information about him which is what wikipedia is for, maybe there are people who are looking for peoples way of having or getting glory. To clarify, I don't care if it's a speedy delete, I just pasted that from what someone else below did, but I can't for the life of me, actually being a debater, work out why he is more noteworthy than a thousand other guys, or how he qualifies for fame. delete if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.0.135 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. This individual is the founder of a world championship (the World Schools Debating Championships) which over 60 countries have been involved in. In addition to that, he's a past president of the only national school-level debating organisation in Australia (the Australian Debating Federation), and of a major regional debating association (the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union). With respect, I therefore believe that he's considerably more notable than someone who founded any old debating competition, or someone who's been president of a small local debating society or event as Jembot is comparing him to. As a world championship founder and major national organisation past president, I think he meets WP:BIO. Purple Watermelon 07:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already voted and said my bit, but the titles given are pretty misleading. I could annoint myself world pokemon online card champion, based on how well I played an online game, but it would be a pretty absurd title.  ADF is not a real body.  It does not "run Australia wide debating", on the contrary it has no involvement in running those bodies beyond a small grant (given by the Govt), which the simply disburse to the affiliates.  The Affiliates from different states who pay a token fee ($200 a year) run Australian debating.  ADF is a body of almost zero significance to them.  It meets once per year, for perhaps 3 hours, and has a council of perhaps half a dozen members (often excluding some states and territories), and is involved in 2 matters.  Making rules for National Schools (a tournament other people from the state affiliates actually convene and organise), and providing a forum for affiliates to select the Aust team.  As for world schools, it is not much of an IV compared to dozens and dozens of other IV's worldwide.  Given a founder is no different to another convenor, it is easy to see how other people could claim the same level of qualification.  There are about a dozen uni level IV's per year for Australian debating- Easters, Australs, Worlds, Womens, Melbourne Mini, sydney Mini, Sydney Pro-am, ADAM, Worlds Mini, ANU mini, etc.  At least half these are better attended than World Schools, and taken more seriously.  Then there are dozens of schools competitions Australia wide, many of which are significantly better attended.  Each debating society has it's own internal comps, some of which would clearly be more participatory (like Sydney, Monash, etc), and every year these bodies and groups have their own presidents, convenors, etc.  Consider then the World wide scope of these sorts of competitions, Asian debating, the US, all the different UK debating societies.  There are probably hundreds of tournaments and bodies of more significance than World Schools, from the Mace to All-Asians, and hundreds and hundreds of debaters who have played as important a role.  What distinguishes Chris from these people?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembot99 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The World Schools Debating Championships is not an IV (IVs - or inter-varsity competitions to use their full name - are university-level tournaments). WSDC is a competition which has, over the years, involved NATIONAL TEAMS of school-level debaters from over 60 countries. That gives the competition a level of significance that goes beyond local, national or regional tournaments where the teams represent individual institutions rather than their country. And even if the Australian Debating Federation's Executive comes together to meet only once a year, its role in setting the rules for national schools debating events and selecting the Australian national schools teams is still a very signifant one. Purple Watermelon 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * World Schools until recently was a very small affair, it by no means traditionally has 60 teams present. Why would an IV be less important?  It features debaters from "all over the world" selected by their universities.  If this tournament is so significant, no doubt every convenor should have their own page, along with every winning team.  In 2005 it has 31 teams, in 2004 it had 29, in 2003 it had 25.  Heck, in 2007 it only had 31 teams, I doubt it has ever had 60 participants, so this is all very deceptive.  Most of these teams are extremely poor, and the competition actually occurs between a handful of teams, which is clearly shown in the results.  Australia has won, what, 7/8 times in the last 8 years?  I likewise don't understand why an IV, attended by people all over the world, with more people in attendance, all representing prestigious instititutions, would be less significant, purely because this falls under the brand of a National team.  Would we add the NATIONAL pogo stick winner too?  Australs, Asians and easters regularly have over 300 participants, Worlds for Uni regularly has 1000,there are dozens or like examples.  Even the yr 7-8 Ford schools comp is would have about 200 kids in it, and is frankly a more credible competition.  World schools has, what, 100 people attending each year?  Would the founders of all those IV's, and all those convenors have pages?  You don't explain why Chris has done something particularly special, or meriting the clearly irrelevant additional information he has put as a glory offering all over his page.  He plays an organ?  He once mooted?  Who cares?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembot99 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of teams who enter the World Schools Debating Championship is not the point (though given that WSDC has a one-team-per-country restriction, I do think the number is quite significant - IVs can involve dozens of teams from the same country). The fact is that Erskine founded (not just once-off convened) a world championship and has stayed involved in that event since. Two decades on, the event is still running, regularly has over 30 national teams involved, has had more than 60 countries send their national teams over the years, and has had around 15 different countries reach the semi-finals or further. All this indicates that it's not just a sham "world championship", but a genuine one which is viewed as significant around the world. Being the founder of this world championship event, coupled with being ADF president (and despite what you say, the ADF has a significant national role in Australian schools debating) and the president of major regional debating association, in my opinion makes Erskine significant enough for Wikipedia. Purple Watermelon 09:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)]
 * How is founding different to convening, except for chronology? If anything, founding is less impressive, because when he ran it there were a mere 8 teams, from organisations that were already established and independent.  If anything subsequent hosts, especially recent convenors, have had a tougher job, having to organise for larger contingents, and having to expand to new areas without debating experience.  If the tournament is so significant, then all the winners should have their own pages, as well as many other hosts.  Otherwise it would be the same as having a page for the guy who founded the MCC, but none of the Cricketers who actually represented England, and won the MCC's trophies.  Of course, that would be ridiculous, because you'd suddenly have thousands upon thousands of debaters at major IV's eligible for their own pages.  As for ADF, you are flat out wrong.  Sorry.  As for his subsequent role in things, it has been largely minimal.  I don't really thinks attempts to ride the gravy train further count as contributions.  If you want to have a page for him, let's include how his incompetence led to the defrauding of ACTDU/debsoc on his watch.  ASsumedly if we're going to reference trivial things about organ playing, that is equally welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How much effort it took Erskine to organise the inaugural WSDC is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not attempt to measure how much time and work it took the subjects of all its biographies to complete their achievements - the issue is the notability of those achievements. Erskine is known around the world as the founder of the World Schools Debating Championships. I've added a sampling (but by no means a complete list) of websites around the world the refer to him as the WSDC founder as references on the page. As for other info, if it's established that he's notable any other verifiable info about him (good or bad) can be added - provided that a reliable source can be found to verify that info and that source can be added as a link on the page for reference. Purple Watermelon 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess the first winners should likewise be honoured? For being the first?  And the first "founder" of all those other comps.  I'm sorry, I'm just confused how WSDC is of more import than say Australs, or WUDC, or All-Asians... perhaps you can give me a run down of why he is more deserving than those people?  You cite his establishment of WSDC, then concede that since other people might have done more work, the amount of work doesn't matter.  You argue fame, yet it is patently obvious that he is among the least famous debating figures in australia.  From Ivan Ah Sam to MatyK and Kim Little, there are debaters left right and center more well known than this obscure 52 year old, not even known by 9/10ths of ACT debaters where he hails from.  So apparently fame isn't important either.  He was the "first to do it", but I can only assume that is moot since you wouldn't support pages for all the other firsts for equally grand tournaments, and it can't be the title he held, because it is relatively obscure and unimportant compared to other debating titles.  So, he is not worthy because of the work involved, fame, originality or rank.  Why exactly does he deserve it again?Jembot99
 * If sombody wanted to create a page about Clark McGinn, the founder of the World Universities Debating Championship (which I consider to be of equivalent stature to WSDC as it's also a world championship), then I would probably support that provided that suitable external references could be found to verify the info and the fact that people around the world consider him to be notable. (And by the way, the founder of the MCC, Thomas Lord, does have a Wikipedia page since you chose to make that comparison). Purple Watermelon 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The World University debating Championships have been going for longer, and feature so many more teams it's pretty comical to compare them. One is ten times larger, and has much more credibility in the debating community.  As do IV's like All-Asians, or Australs, or Easters.  The other is largely a junket, which contains a handful of serious teams, most of whome only debate each other once or twice in the prelims, and has less influence and effect on the structures and rules of debating worldwide, let alone development of it, than any major IV would.  The MCC "come back" you give is also pretty comical, the point was that the cricketers who played for the MCC are listed too.  Another good example would be listing the beauracrat who founded Wimbledon, but none of the tennis players involved in the tournament.  You propose to list the founder of a tournament, which was extremely small and insiginificant when it was founded, but none of the competition winners.  If WSDC is really such a huge thing, then assumedly the winners deserve a page, or certainly the founding winners and runners up, under your bizarre analysis.  But you obviously don't want to put your name to such a suggestion.  I believe I understand the logic underlying this convenient decision.  But the heart of the needto delete this, is the fact that he is not notable, no moreso than the president of a student body would be, regardless of whether it was for a "worldwide representative body" like the australian National University for exmample.  He has no fame, even within the debating community he is effectively a nonentity.  A quick google search of his name and the word "debating" comes up with 375 references (many of them not about him), compared to 811 for Kim Little for eg using the exact same search term. A similar search for Tim Sonnereich comes up with 311 matches. Or 318 for Harry Greenwell.  Pat Delaney and debating gets you to over 1000, and he only won a single tournament. 13,000 plus for former world champion Jeremy Brier (I'm sure there are more than 375 here about him). David Ham comes up with over 400, despite being a mere archivist for debating with no real substantive achievements compared with most serious international debaters. Colm Flynn has 660.  The man is just not notable at all, most debaters and students don't know or care much about this junket, or the first man to convene it.  Jembot99
 * You are implying that you think I am Christopher Erskine. I can absolutely assure you I am not. WSDC has been around for only a slightly shorter time than WUDC, and in terms of the number of countries who participate, it's about the same size (the smaller number of teams is because of the one-team-per-country limit at WSDC). And you're wrong to say that it has little influence on the structures and rules of debating worldwide. Several countries (particularly in Asia and Eastern Europe) run national and regional tournaments using the WSDC format and rules, and view WSDC as major benchmark. I don't think it's at all comical to compare WSDC and WUDC. I don't believe that winning a school-level debating competition makes a debater notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page (unless there's something else notable about them too). But I do believe that founding a world school-level championship that's run for two decades and DOES have significant influnce on the way schools debating is run in several countries around the world (coupled with being president of two major debating organisations in Australia) makes someone notable enough. Purple Watermelon 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * given you obviously know the guy personally, I think it's moot if you are Erskine himself (who started the page) or his former mooting team mate. If your tournament is so significant, surely you will push for the people who win it to get a page.  Somehow you want to have it both ways, even if the winner subsequently goes on to become a major debating committee figure like Liz (of course, she could debate too). Jembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate my argument that founding a long-running world school-level world championship is more significant than being a one-off winner of it. But if a former winner was also notable for something else, I'd support them having a Wikipedia page. Erskine in my opinion is significant because he not only founded a world championship, but has also been president of major national and regional organisations (not just associations representing a single institution). There's nothing to indicate that Erskine created the page. As for me, I did not create the page and nor am I Christopher Erskine or his former mooting mate. Please avoid getting personal and stick to the arguments. Purple Watermelon 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't believe there are enough people who know Erskine for it to be credible that you don't know him personally, which I notice you have dodged answering one way of the other. He is not famous, even within debating, nor is his role in WSDC and ADF, two relatively insiginificant bodies, particularly important.  He has hosted this relatively unimportant IV twice, when it was much smaller.  There is no real importance with the fact he did it first, certainly not enough to justify the additional material on him, if the action of doing it first gave it significance, then all the "first" winners and so on should be important.  If the significance is from hosting, then all convenors should be named.  and from other like IV's too.  His role in subsequent years is not significant either, each year it is hosted, the country in question takes all the responsibility basically, aside from a one off meeting per year by the relevant body.  If ADF is so significant, you should have their founder too.  Add the founders of all the national debating bodies worldwide, particularly if they have other stuff on their debating resume.  By Erskines own admission, he did not found the tournament alone- "...the whole idea of a World Championship was dreamed up over drinks at a Canberra Pub by Chris Erskine, Russell Gesling and Desmond Manderson in 1986" says the ACTDU webpage.  The man only convened it, and chronologically he is no different to any other convenor.  When a founder is famous, it is almost always for one of two reasons: a) the event he founded is famous.  WSDC hardly meets that definition, any more than the world spelling bee or pokemon contest.  And b) when the act of founding or creating something involves an act that leaves a significant legacy for that event.  Someone who creates a school, or a program, or an artwork would be famous, even if those things were altered or copied en masse later on.  But Erskine just hosted it one year, then a different group of people hosted it the next year.  Each year, the host country hosts effectively from scratch, Erskine plays no real role in any of that.  They don't debate in the Erskine stadium, they don't all read the Erskine debating manual (though doubtless he has written some materials, along with thousands of others who have written materials)Jembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that I've never met Christopher Erskine. But I'm not a personal friend of his. The fact that I've had some very limited interaction with him is not the reason I think he's notable. It's not the case that Erskine convened WSDC twice and had nothing more to do with it. He's still the chairman of its governing body's executive committee today. And I'll reiterate again that I think what makes him notable is that he was the WSDC founder AND the ADF and ACTDU president. And I do not agree with you that WSDC and the ADF are insiginificant bodies (for reasons I've alreday stated). Since you keep making the comparison with debaters, I'd say that a debater who both wins a world championship and also becomes president of a major and genuinely-national debate organisation could also be a potential candidate for a Wikipedia article. (Erik Eastaugh seems to have a Wikipedia page for that reason - you'll probably say that it's different becuase his achievements were at university-level, but I think that the top international and national high school-level debates are as significant as the top international and national uni-level debates.) Purple Watermelon 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're willing to concede that anyone who wins a major IV like worlds (uni or otherwise), and is also president of their society, gets a page, then there's no problem. It's just wikipedia better get ready for hundred or thousands of people with similar qualifications from winners of Australasians, Worlds, All-Asians at uni level all get their own profiles, since winners are almost always involved in debating at an administrative level anyway.  I agree, Erskine is in the same level of importance as Erik for a page (though Erik's achievements have vastly more credibility and fame since they were personal achievements.  But then, "those who can't do, teach"), it's just you are effectively opening the floodgates for thousands of similar pages.  I think this is dumb, since they are note noteworthy enough, and so reiterate that this should be deleted.Jembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the number of people who have either won or founded a world championship and also headed their national debate association is actually pretty small. Purple Watermelon 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the number with like achievements is very large. It's just you invent a false premise to try and create that appearance.  ADF is not a significant body in any way, shape or form.  It is not a National body in any significant sense.  Nor is AIDA, the university equivalent of ADF.  But there are certainly a number of people who have won like sized tournaments or like significance, and have headed bodies of equal or greater significance to ADF.  Go to the AIDA webpage.  The ADF doesn't even have one.  Do you want to know why?  It's because they don't really do anything.  3 debating beauracrats run stuff, and why would they need a webpage when they just e-mail each other.  Those involved with this "national" body are the same people every year, and are not really accountable or representative in any real sense.  Most debaters in Australia have no association with them, or any idea who they are, or what ADF is or does.  But if they declare themselves a national body, by golly they are, even if they meet for 3 hours a year.  Nobody involved with debating could hope to be taken seriously by suggesting only the WUDC could equal WSDC, it's completely comical.  WSDC has only a handful of serious teams, and is less representative in terms of the number of institutions, and the number of representatives present.  All-Asians, Australasians, Easters, etc, are more famous and more serious.  But hey, WSDC has the word "world" in it, so it's more important.  Like the "world" pokemon championships is more important than the American poker championships... cos one has the word "world".... I've renominated Erik for deletion (asking someone who knows how to formalise this), and he is one of a handful of debaters who were not deleted.  As the history of his deletion page notes most like pages were deleted, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kevin_Massie, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Casey_Halladay, for just two examples of how the last discussion of this wentJembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a some sort of prejudice against WSDC. But the fact is that it is a world championship (regardless of how uncredible you personally believe it to be), and is recognised as such by a significant number of countries who send their national school-level teams organised by their national school-level debate associations to compete in it (regardless of how uncredible you personally believe the set-up of those national associations to be). Of course it's less represetative in terms of institutions - becuase the teams don't represent institutions, they represent countries. But the number of countries involved in both events is similar. One could indeed argue that a competition involving national teams is in fact more credible than one involving multiple institutions (but that's a separate debate). Either way, someone who argues that WUDC and WSDC are the world's two most significant debate tournaments is not being comical. Of course some debaters will disagree (they're debaters after all), but a significant number of people around the world would agree and would have quite justifiable reasons for doing so (even if you personally don't feel that way). Purple Watermelon 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why justify it when you can make bold assertions... as I said, what would be more credible, the American Poker championships, or the WORLD pokemon card tournament? By your logic there could be 1000 teams at the poker game, and only 1 team per country for the world pokemon game, and the pokemon one would win purely based on the fact that it's title includes the word "world".  The fact that it is WORLDWIDE (which given it has about 25 teams a year isn't even true) doesn't then in turn confer notability.  You haven't established at any stage why it is significant enough to not only have its own page, but to have a glory page for one of the guys who founded it.Jembot99
 * Of course there's various factors that make a world championship credible beyond just its name. If you read through the various things I've said above, I think I have explained why I think WSDC is a credible world championship and not just a sham one. Purple Watermelon 13:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you've been very eloquent in your defence of the significance of the World Schools comp. It is a competition SO significant, and so competetive, that it's winners are of no note, irrespective of whether they went on to win other debating comps, or to hold debating committee positions, nor are the dozens of different convenors over the years, no matter if they did more work than Erskine, because the work Erskine put in is "irrelevant" in comparison to his impressive titles.  Nay, only one of the 3 initial proposers of this grand competition are worthy of a page.  This makes it possibly the first international sporting event whose head beauracrat (assuming for a moment he really is) is more important than any of it's participants.  I think your analysis speaks for itself.  Only WUDC, with it's 1120 participants this year, from well over 100 institutions, can compare to the 25 or so teams at the WSDC, or say the 80 teams from around the world at other major IV's. Jembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and I'll say it again, what makes Erskine notable is his founding of WSDC and his heading of two other significant debate organisations. If any winners of WSDC also have another achievment of note, I'd support them having a page too. As for Russell Gesling and Desmond Manderson, the only thing it says about them on the web is that they once had a chat with Erskine in a pub. Purple Watermelon 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Erik's page is going, this one will be next hopefully.JJJ999 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the issue is less WP:N than it is WP:V. /Blaxthos 11:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What's not verified? Purple Watermelon 11:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that Blaxthos is referring to the lack of independent sources for him. I would support a keep if independent sources were found. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the references on the page now, I think you'll see that several of them are from sources independent of WSDC or other organisations Erskine's been involved with. Purple Watermelon 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Capitalistroadster 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a clear glory page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.102.130 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but remove the hagiography and get more WP:RS. It actually might pass on WP:MUSIC alone, as he is an acclaimed organist.  Hang a tag for needing more sources - the "verify" tag. Bearian 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "acclaimed organist"! On what do you base this?  He is the equivalent of a large bars piano man, or the local churches volunteer band for heavens sake.  There is no notability in this, no prizes for music, he is just the guy who is willing to play the organ for what even the picture demonstrates is a tiny, insiginificant church, which one or two people of note once attended.  A local bakery doesn't become famous if Prince Charles goes there once for a tart, nor does the bakeries head chef.  If you added every "organist" with no other qualifications for every church, you could add probably 10,000 pages easily.  Have you looked at the info on this "largest Anglican Chruch"?  Here it is: http://www.stpaulsmanuka.org.au/photo_gallery.htm, even there god damn own picture only has 20-30 people in the church, and it doesn't look like it'd fit a whole lot more.  Why not add the 2 kids next to his photo too?  They are "head trumpeteers" of this incredible building.  I think you should remove the keep on that basis.  Jembot99 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think founding a world championship makes him pretty significant. Ilcewf 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment- you would Chris, or whoever you are, since you "founded" the page originally. One more reason to strike this, there is clear bad faith from the guy who started the page, by not disclosing that he did so, and from his comments implying that he is a free agent. There are probably 2 guys here who want this page, both know him personally at least, one is quite possibly Chris erskine.  It should be scrappedJembot99 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Ilcewf is Christopher Erskine. You've now accused both Ilcewf and me of being the subject of this article without any justification for doing so just because we've supported keeping this article. I could similarly accuse of being Erskine's worst enemy in real life with an irrational grude against him, but since I have no explanation to back-up such an accusation, I won't concoct such a story. I know you think that Erskine is unknown to almost anyone but his close friends, but the reality is that pretty much everyone who's been involved in WSDC over the years (and despite what you think, that is a pretty large number of people), not to mention many other people who've taken some sort of interest in WSDC even if they haven't been to it, know who Erskine is even if they've never been personally introduced to him. There loads of people around the world who could potentially have decided to create this article. Stick to the arguments and drop the unsubstantiated personal griping mate. Purple Watermelon 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "and one is quite possibly Erskine"- not that he is. But irrespective, even I know you're supposed to declare a conflict/vested interest if you created the page, and here is Ilcewf pretending he is new to the proceedings, and an objective outsider.  This is bad faith, which is the accusation I did make, and is another reason why we should delete it.JJJ999 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:AGF. Purple Watermelon 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N as the subject is not notable per the guidelines as there no significant independent secondary sources who have written about the subject. Assize 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the references on the page, I think you'll see that there are some independent secondary sources. Purple Watermelon 05:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment- PW has a different idea of what is a "significant" independent source.JJJ999 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have re-read the references. All but two references are from "debating" websites and I don't consider that satisfies "independent". The other two references, one is from an independent source being a newspaper.  It also mentions him in passing. The second is a caption to a photo in which he is one of four.  The subject is still not the subject of significant independent coverage in secondary sources. Assize 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sources from the English-Speaking Union, the German Debating Society and two Canadian debate websites. These may be debate related, but they're not organisations which Erskine is affiliated to. And there's also one from an Australian government website. I don't think you've looked very carefully. I count five sources that aren't debate related.Purple Watermelon 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Significant"- those debating pages are not significant independent sources, they are basically debating blogs. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about this man, his fame is miniscule, 9/10ths of the debaters in the ACT don't know who he is, which is the whole point.  You could produce 500 debating blogs, and I still don't think you'd have much of a case to him being notable.  I could easily find 500 references to heaps of debaters who have won tourneys, would that make them notable?  Be serious.JJJ999 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reference is the significant reference which covers the subject in detail. Every reference seems to chant "Chris Erskine is the founder of". The onus is on the article to prove notability, not on the community to disprove notability. Assize 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I voted 'delete' in the Erik Eastaugh AfD, which appears to have come about following the discussions above. But I'm going for 'keep' here. In a schools competition, I think the founder can be more notable than the winners. The winners are undoubtedly good debaters, but they're still school children. However the founder has established a system that's allowed countries from all over the world to send their best school debaters to compete against each other in what these countries recognise as a world championship. And this bloke also seems to have a few other somewhat notable things about him. Dorange 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And you would support the founders of similar sized competitions? From EUDC to Australs to Easters, Mace, All-Asians and so on?  Why should his act of convening initially be so much more significant than other convenors, who may have changed the format and rules considerably since he ran it?  If we could find a "worldwide comp" with 25 pokemon countries/teams, would that be a notable event too?JJJ999 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment- now, I hate to harp on rules I am bad at myself, but you've made continual edits since I nominated this purple water. It's against the spirit of the nomination, especially the repeated assertion of footnotes which seem to serve little benefit, but force people to read them as well.  Just cool it on the editing please, since you defended it in its initial state, you shouldn't need to keep fiddling it.  One of the links for example is to "substantiate" his work as an "organist", but it tells us nothing new, it is simply an additional footnote to make it look more impressive.  It mentions Howard visiting, but since nobody disputed that, and you never explained why that would make a volunteer organist notable, it's a waste of all of our time to read things like this.  If anything, the article gives us another reason to delete this, because he didn't attend the church for any reason associated to Erskine, or even the church, but to attend the funeral of some random guy who happened to be given a service there.JJJ999 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that making improvements to an article that's being considered for deletion is a violation of any Wikipedia policy (or the spirit of any Wikipedia policy for that matter). I've been arguing the principle that I think Erskine is notable enough for Wikipedia. I've never said that I thought the article was absolutely perfect and couldn't be improved. Purple Watermelon 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is no violation, it is very strongly encouraged by WP:AFD and deletion policy. The best possible outcome of an AfdD is an improved article that gets kept. DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because article asserts notability and has numerous references. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It asserts it... it just doesn't justify it, indeed evidence points to the contrary.JJJ999 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It would help if there were at least one reference to a conventional 3d party reliable published source. It really needs that to be convincing. DGG (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A source for verifiability or to ensure note? I am only arguing the latter really.JJJ999 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to the article about World Schools, found to my considerable surprise that somebody had added a link to an article about me, and followed it to this. It's hard to describe my feelings as I read all this bizarre discussion about me by people I don't know, about a page I didn't write and knew nothing about until this afternoon. At one level it is flattering to find that somebody has written the article. At another, though, it's deeply embarrassing, because it is seriously insulting to read that somebody thinks I actually wrote the page and did so as an exercise in self aggrandisement. Like all people I have my faults, but those faults don't extend to anything quite so pathetic as to write a Wikipedia article about myself. I would like the article deleted, notwithstanding the generous comments from purple watermelon, because it leads to the misconceptions exemplified in the offensive comments about me from jembot99 and jjj. Thankyou to purple watermelon, whoever you are, for the thought: but I don't think Wikipedia needs an article about me. If somebody wants to find out about me, they can put my name into Wikipedia - or google for that matter - and find whatever comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cme35 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And on reflection this offensive discussion about me raises two related issues. First, if Wikipedia is going to propose an article about a living person, shouldn't they seek that person's consent first? Second, if Wikipedia is going to conduct a discussion about whether or not a person justifies an entry about them, shouldn't it be conducted civilly, with reference to the criteria rather than gratuitous insults? As to the first, if I had been asked about the article before it was put up by whoever wrote it, I would have refused consent. Perhaps that is not the touchstone of whether there should be an entry: but surely it's a powerful consideration. As to the second, I am actually very hurt by some of the offensive assumptions made by several anonymous writers in this discussion that I was the author of the article in the first place, let alone some of the other even more offensive comments about me which are quite gratuitous. If there were a central place in which to make complaints about this discussion, I would have done so. Instead, I guess I am stuck with the wonderful anarchy of the internet. If I want an uncensored internet, it is a small price to pay to put up with a few insults on a very obscure page of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cme35 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 September 2007
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 22 September 2007 (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.