Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Erik Eastaugh
Non notable vanity page. OCNative 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No debate. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. [[Image:Magic.svg|20px]] Dustimagic! (talk/contribs) 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - in the world of debate, winning the (international) Worlds is notable. &mdash;ERcheck @ 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Arbustoo 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per ERcheck. Mak emi 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence this is a vanity page; original author has worked on a slew of articles in the general debating field. It's really inappropriate to see the "vanity" label so capriciously thrown around in disputes without even a minimal effort to verify it. If the championship is notable enough to deserve its own article, it's hard to make a case that champions aren't notable. Monicasdude 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The original author also has already had several articles deleted, including Robert Silver, Casey Halladay, and Brent Patterson. See Votes for deletion/Robert Silver, Votes for deletion/Casey Halladay, and Votes for deletion/Brent Patterson. OCNative 08:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's a bad faith argument if I've ever seen one. There's no deletion criterion which even remotely suggests this is appropriate to consider. Monicasdude 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep winner of internationally recognised contest. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete 338 google results. That is not enough verifiable info for an article.  Highly suspiscious, this is probably vanity.  Lotsofissues 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is not the world championships - It only applies to university students. I wonder what would happen if someone put up bios for everybody who won a gold medal at the University Games (sport). The other thing which concerns me is that it only applies to the English speaking world, eg AUS, USA, UK and CAN (compare to International Mathematics Olympiad, Physics, etc, where there are many countries, and especially communist countries and some others, where the education dept of the government will separate talented students into separate maths/science academies for years and get professors to train them - are they eligible, maybe I should put their articles also; this is a much higher standard of scrutiny/pressure than a university club). I'm also less inclined to keep because debating is by nature extremely subjective, so that it is harder to extablish credibility (ie. skill). Blnguyen 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks quite internatinal to me from looking at the page - teams from South Africa, Thailand, Barbados, Israel, and Bosnia have participated. You're disinclined because debating is subjective?! So is figure skating and hundreds of other activities, but that's no reason to not have an article on people who have won notable events. Turnstep 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine, so what do people think if I put up articles on Olympiad winners??Blnguyen 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that he was third individually and not an individual champion as it seems to imply. I have changed this in the first line of the title. Also these "world championships" refer only to English debating, and that is rather restrictive then isn't it??Blnguyen 02:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Monicasdude. Please don't use the "vanity" tag without evidence. Also, while Google hits are useful, they aren't a be-all-and-end-all test for notability. Camillus (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' I don't think it's vanity, but I don't think it's notable either. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Garglebutt. Mi kk er ... 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Garglebutt. -- Zsinj Talk 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per User:Garglebutt.,,,,,Ariele 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable accomplishment. There is only one winning team per year. Turnstep 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Turnstep. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Wikipedia can include anime, then it can certainly include a debate champion.  Don't you think?  Logophile 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per † Ðy§ep§ion †. Alternatively, smerge just his name to the World Universities Debating Championship, which could be done for all the winning universities. Zunaid 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable achievement. -- Fenster 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Blnguyen. Awards in colleigate debate are great on a résumé, but are hardly encyclopedic. Wiki4Life 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Achievements are very notable in their sphere. Note also that Wiki4Life is new handle created to vote on two debating related VfD pages. -- TrinityC 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Debating achievements are encylopedic, and additional biographical details and achievements warrant entry. -- BfDx 06:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already been a precedent established that university debaters are not notable enough for Wikipedia entries per se (see, frex, Votes for deletion/Ranjan Agarwal, Votes for deletion/Jason Brent, Votes for deletion/Kevin Massie, Votes for deletion/Brent Patterson, Votes for deletion/Casey Halladay.) I haven't seen a convincing argument here to change that precedent. Delete. Bearcat 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reading the VfD in the above mentioned cases, from what is preserved, it seems that none of the nominees won the "Worlds".  They did well, were in the "top", or runners up.  The subject of this article won the international "worlds".  So, more notable. &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the first sentence of the article. May need a slight rewrite to avoid peacock terms. Stifle 11:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- winning a meaningless contest doesn't mean anything. -- GWO 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment-- Meaningless to whom? Logophile 14:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Bearcat. Spelling bee winners don't seem to get articles and those competitions get more attention than the debating ones.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Debating is almost automatically vanity, but, still, an achievement of sorts with some degree of notability. Peter Grey 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ðy§ep§ion. Master and Commander 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (comment restored by Syrthiss 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Syrthiss's logic and behavior on this are beyond comprehension. Look at the edit history on Matthew Vassar and you'll see there is a history of rampant vandalism from numerous IPs, and User:Master and Commander comes out of nowhere and his first edits are in support of the vandal.  I've spent quite a bit of time trying to clean up that article, and was confident that the user was the vandal.  Suddenly, when the user slips up doesn't log in, revealing their IP address to be one of those used by the vandal, their identity became pretty clear (as if it wasn't before).  A persistent Wikipedia vandal with such bad-faith behavior should not be supported this way. TrinityC 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: We now have proof that User:Master and Commander is a sockpuppet of the Matthew Vassar vandal. See this edit  where he forgot to login and left his IP address (and then corrected it), and then examine this edit  from that same IP address, vandalizing the Matthew Vassar article.  Please ban this user and delete his edits (and current VfD votes).  Thanks! TrinityC 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thank you. Proving that someone uses two different IDs doesn't mean anything if they don't use both of those IDs to vote.  If you can prove that User:Master and Commander and User:Wiki4Life are the same, that's another story because they both actually voted.  Regardless, it's up to an admin to decide what to do.  Personally, I think the self-defense by Master and Commander should be restored as well since it may weigh in on the discussion.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Restored commentary from Master and Commander by Syrthiss 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - If you go to my talk page User talk:Master and Commander, you will see that TrinityC has already been warned by Syrthiss "about making accusations of sockpuppetry" about me. I am not the Matthew Vassar vandal; all I did was remove twice remove boxes that TrinityC invented, which were not in accordance with wikipedia rules. Syrthiss also advised TrinityC "against placing their own made up vandalism notice" on the article. TrinityC is the only person who has accused me of sockpuppetry and vandalism. Please do not make false accusations about me. Furthermore, I am not User:Wiki4Life, and I do not see how my three word vote is almost identical to Wiki4Life's. There are a number of 3-word votes that are identically worded, but they are not accused of sockpuppetry; the reason for this is that it's standard format for a vote. Again, I ask you TrinityC to stop making accusations against me, especially in light of the warning you already received about this. Thank you. Master and Commander 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the records, I strongly object to the removal of User:Master and Commander's vote and self-defense. The proof is that User:Master and Commander and User:128.12.20.66 are the same but those two IDs have not been voted in this Afd.  The secondary accusation is that User:Master and Commander and User:Wiki4Life are the same - and that's the basis for the vote deletion.  That secondary accusation has not been proven as far as I can tell.  For all I can tell, Wiki4Life could be someone that just recently created a user account.  My reverting of the vote deletion was, in turn, reverted.  This is not appropriate for a non-admin.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NO, the secondary accustion is NOT the basis for the vote deletion. The only vote which was deleted was that of the sockpuppet User:Master and Commander on the basis of the clear proof that he is a sockpuppet.  User:Wiki4Life's vote remains 100% intact. I'm sure that User:Wknight94 is acting in good faith, but for some reason cannot see that the vote is still clearly there! TrinityC 12:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He is a sockpuppet with User:128.12.20.66 - that is clear. It is not so clear that he is a sockpuppet with User:Wiki4Life.  As far as I can tell, User:Wiki4Life and User:Master and Commander should each be allowed to vote.  Where is the duplicate vote?  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is a bad faith vote from a bad-faith user and vandal. He is simply objecting to this debater's bio because he is also a debater and his own vanity bio has been rejected from being grafted onto the Matthew Vassar article as he has attempted to do many times.  TrinityC 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You claimed sockpuppetry, not bad faith. You don't appear to have proof of either.  Even if you're right about both, it's in very bad taste to remove other people's comments/votes.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's pretty clear there's proof of both. But sorry for removing the comments/votes; I did not realize the etiquette on Talk pages is different than on article pages, and that we should leave vandal's comments in place and just annotate them with criticisms. Which is why I've fixed it now. TrinityC 18:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that the same person voted twice here. That's what sockpuppetry is.  Using two IDs is not sockpuppetry - it's only when they are used for ballot box stuffing.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Syrthiss 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The World University Debating Championships is the largest student event in the world. Winning it is far more notable than other examples given above. HHR 17:03, 17 February 2006 (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.