Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination -- I am not nominating for deletion, but only assisting an editor with this second nomination (per this request). Original AFD closed with no consensus, I am going to assume that the article is being re-nominated due to the same rationale as the first nomination -- namely, fails notability and contains no reliable secondary sources. No improvement or addition of reliable sources since the first nomination. -- 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The actual nominator is JJJ999, who has not identified himself as the nominator and has provided a "strong delete" statement below. -Jmh123 16:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Actual nominator needs to add his rationale as well.  /Blaxthos 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- this article was bogged down, in part my fault, due to a two man argument that blotted out interest in it, then resulted in a no consensus nomination. This time I will be short and sweet, and hopefully we can see the back of this thing.  Just to make it clear, I am the nominator of this AfD.
 * Reasons For Deletion'
 * Erskine has no real notability. A mere convenor of a kids tournament with about 30 teams per year simply doesn't cut it.  The tournament itself is notable, but there is no way to justify his inclusion merely because he was the first person to convene.  The suborganisations to run this already existed, he just said "hey, why don't you all debate in the 'world' comp this year".
 * WSDC is a pretty paltry worlds comp, it is of far less note than most debating tourneys and of less prestige, it gets very little funding for one, and is incredibly uncompetetive for another. Witness Australia winning about 7 years in a row.  It is nothing like the Chemistry Olympiad (whose founder also would not be notable IMO, but this is far more clear cut).
 * The committees he is on are made up of a handful of people, and do nothing for notability- ADF for eg, comprises perhaps 6 people who meet once per year. Grand titles do not notability make.
 * COI issues as well as POV, since the writer knows Erskine (who himself claims he doesn't want a page, and doesn't think he deserves it). He also edits out any criticism of Erskine, even when sourced, but considers material such as what primary school he went to, or the fact he plays the Organ at a local church, of great noteworthiness.
 * This is the most blatant vanity page I have seen in a while, even post-clean up, and I think it should be removed immediately. If it stays, by the same logic other winners or founders or club presidents of debating would have grounds for their own pages, which would amount to thousands of people.JJJ999 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. The article just states, in the most flowery and aggrandising prose possible, that this is a guy who helps organise debate contests for kids.  I'm surprised the first AFD was closed as no consensus, frankly. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS and WP:N. STORMTRACKER   94  14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. However, it should be noted that the nominator has a COI.  He has made disparaging comments about the subject, tried to add OR and poorly sourced material, and has vandalized the page. V-train 17:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am swayed by Erskine's comments at the end of the previous AfD in which he asks to be removed.  I am  troubled by the vehemence with which JJJ999 has persistently attacked Erskine and the article's author, on the talk page and in the previous AfD.  It seems personal to me, and unkind to say the least.  Despite all this, I think the best resolution of this situation is to delete.  -Jmh123 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, while I too question JJJ999's concerns, the page unfortunately does not excel WP:NN in spite of the nice refs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See my new comment below. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete I am not swayed by Erskin's comment--I think it is a reaction to the vehemence of the discussion, and a reflection of the subject's reasonable desire for modesty. It would be a very bad precedent if we allowed the rhetoric at afd to scare away subjects of articles--it would be all to easy to persuade a subject to withdraw by being sufficiently sharp about it. The way to discourage improper activities is to not do what they are trying to accomplish. Just as we cannot allow subjects to veto articles that they think insufficiently laudatory, we cannot allow editors to use such methods to dissuade the subjects from proper articles. Article content can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * but upon considering Jreferee's detailed comment below, I agree that the article itself can not be supported. Regardless of method of deletion, there is not real notability.  DGG (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Debater Christopher Erskine has an interview, which comprises the article (1) Blenkin, Max. (September 13, 1998) Australian Associated Press Fed: Great debate produced no knockout win. In that interview, he discussed in detail the September 1998 debate between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley. That's about it on the reliable source material. The attorney for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service is named Christopher Erskine. Either debater Christopher Erskine or attorney Christopher Erskine often writes letters to the editor of the The Canberra Times - a lot of letters. There is a U.S. film director named Christopher Erskine. The attorney Christopher Erskine and U.S. film director Christopher Erskine might meet WP:N. Debater Christopher Erskine does not meet WP:N. -- Jreferee    t / c  03:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see DGG's point, but the attacks have been relentless, and have long preceded the first AfD.  Perhaps I'm just too sympathetic: why should a borderline notable person have be subjected to this if he doesn't want it?  Having said that, this Christopher Erskine is an attorney.  I have no idea if he's the same attorney to whom Jreferee refers.  From the "trivia" section I deleted: Erskine lives in Canberra, where he works as a barrister, specialising in commercial and government law cases.Blackburn Chambers. -Jmh123 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Knowing personally who this guy is, I take considerable offense to the idea that he deserves a page, given he has no notability at all. If he really was notable, my view would be he should deal with abuse like any other public figure.  There is nothing borderline about his notability, he (once) organised childrens debating and happens to be a lawyer (hardly rare).  The creator of the page has never identified themselves, voted in the AfDs or justified the page beyond this remark in the first AfD, in which he holds himself out as an uninterested voter: "Keep. I think founding a world championship makes him pretty significant. Ilcewf 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ".  So while (someone claiming to be) Erskine denies creating the page, I am in no doubt that he, or one of his friends, was the original creator.JJJ999 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no interest in this, so I will not argue one way or the other (though from scanning the article it looks like a "delete"). I just find it ridiculous that this is being nominated less than a month after it survived an AfD. Maybe it does deserve to be deleted, but geez... faithless   (speak)  07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a month, the original nomination was botched by me, it was the 15th, so approx 30 days.JJJ999 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first AfD ended on the 22nd, making it barely over three weeks time. V-train 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. JJJ999 seems to have some sort of personal vendetta against the subject of this article. The last AfD closed less than a month ago. JJJ999 made several unnessarily nasty comments and accusations in that AfD (and seems to be starting to do so again in this AfD). Since that AfD closed, he's deliberately vandalised the page and attempted to add in things of very questionable verifiability and relavance in an obvious attempt to cast the subject in a bad light (all of which is discussed in detail in the article's talk page). But in spite of all this, I still think the subject is notable. He's the founder of a world championship event contested by national teams from countries from all over the world (and JJJ999 is the only person I've ever heard assert that it's a non-notable world championship). The article is heavily referenced with sources from several debate-related websites from around the world, and a few other sources including an Australian government website. I think it should stay. Dorange 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * dommentDoranges first post in 10 days. guess what his last one was on... but hey, only I have strong personal views...So, to summarise, Dorange has made no post in 10 days.  His last one was on Erskine.  Since Sept 18th, 4 weeks prior to this above post, he has made 22edits/posts, half pertain to Erskine, the others with the exception of a few about Marmalade Atkins all pertain to debating articles (Randy Harvey, the ficticious WPDC, Yugo Deb Net and Erik Eastaugh (all were deleted btw).  To suggest Dorange has no vested interest in the subject matter, or that his views are less strong than mine, seems inaccurate.  Similar to Purple, whose only role here seems to  be to defend Erskines article, and edit the WSDC.  I am a tad skeptical about Dorange and Purples COI too... at any rate, they obviously have different views about the notability of public speakers to most wikipedians JJJ999)
 * Keep. My reasons are the same as last time. This individual has both founded a world championship, and also been president of both a national and regional debating organisation in Australia. It's a well sourced article with a wide variety of references. A notable enough figure in the debate world for a Wikipedia article in my opinion (despite what JJJ999 says). Purple Watermelon 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, after reading through the history revisions and this entire nom, I've now come to the conclusion that it was done in bad faith. JJJ999 apparently does have something against the page and several authors, and it appears his prime reason for setting the afd is to be "vengeful" so to speak. I'd like to see this article kept so more time can be used for improvement. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Dorange and Purple want us to believe it is a serious world championship, yet simultaneously concede that it would be ludicrous for us to give a page to any of the winners of this comp, or best speakers, or other convenors, or any of the winners/best-speakers/convenors/founders of other debating comps which are bigger and more notable, have corporate sponsorship in the tens to hundreds of thousands and news coverage, ministers attending, etc (Australs, WUDC, All-Asians, Easters, Mace, etc). Such an admission would be a green light to thousands of debating bios (which have a history of being deleted in AfD's, witness Erik Eastaugh nom).  They know this, so in an attempt to keep the article they have drawn an obviously false distinction between the significance of the "founder/1stConvenor" and everyone else ever involved with WSDC (not even the "first" winners, or the "first" best speaker).  This evident double standard by its defenders says it all.  I wouldn't even have that much of a problem keeping it if they were willing to concede pages for these people, but the argument that only Erskine of all of them can be worthy, that the winners of this comp are meaningless, but Erskine is notable, really does remove all credibility as far as I am concerned.JJJ999  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Note- There is alot of talk about how it is a "world championship" and that makes it important, but this simply isn't so. The use of the term "world" does not connote significance.  Nor has their been any explanation at all why he is notable.  When I type the following into google ("Chris Erskine" World schools debating championship) I get 16 hits, a variation of this (replace World Schools debating championship with WSDC) gets 15 hits.  A more generous search with the term debating gets 117, though they are still almost all of the blog/one-liner variety.  Almost all of them are unimportant sources.  If I types in "Kim Little", one of the many winners of the WUDC, and other terms like "debating" for example, I get what seems to be 800 hits (actually 335), including sources like the 7:30 report on page 1 (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Kim+Little%22+debating&btnG=Search&hl=en).  Former world Champion Jeremy Brier returns what appears to be over 2000 ghits (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Jeremy+Brier%22+debating&btnG=Search&meta=).  I could do the same trick with hundreds of debaters.  I have to confess I am baffled at how someone like this would be "not-notable" in your minds, but someone like Erskine would be notable... it just smacks of the bizarre, and suggests partisanship and/or a personal relationship with him.JJJ999  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can this just be looked at objectively. The person has done a great job in setting up a competition. Whilst that makes him notable in a sense, it doesn't satisfy the guidelines under WP:N for inclusion as an entry.  Coupled with the fact that he wants it removed, I think the community should just honour that request. Assize 07:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The nomination may be in bad faith, but the nomination is valid. This guy is not notable. All that is said is that he organised debate competitions for schoolkids, and is a barrister and organist. I cannot accept that there is any way he is notable, despite how hard the article tries. --Mkativerata 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG, but we might want to hold this open for another day. Bearian 19:29, 22 October 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.