Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters


 * 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 "keep" opinions don't address this article's failure to conform with Stand-alone lists.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of debaters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list should only consist of people notable as debaters, according to the guideline for stand-alone lists. However, no notable debaters can be found to list. Past consensus has been that even winning the highest level of university debate doesn't automatically confer notability - see AfDs such as this one. Research has not uncovered any debaters who meet the general notability guidelines as debaters. Therefore, there appears to be no appropriate content for this list. See article talk page for discussion leading to decision to list here. Suggest deletion without prejudice against later re-creation if evidence is found of individuals who are notable as debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   —Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteShould go like the other lists of debaters that were killed. Real efforts to find agreement and discussion were made.  In the end notability is not only illusory, but unmaintainable on this list.  The winners should just be listed on the pages for the IVs in question.JJJ999 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to List of notable debaters. People such as Bill O'Chee and Adam Spencer are from my country, were heavily involved in debating once upon a time, and have achieved notability not for debating, but for reasons related to debating. I'd draw an analogy with a list of notable freemasons. Hardly anyone is notable for being a freemason, but plenty of notable people are freemasons. Some of them have been at least helped along by freemasonry. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:stand-alone lists "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist". Therefore only people who are notable as debaters should be in this list, and we can't find any. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people who are notable atheists are not notable for being atheists, but their atheism is notable. We have a list of atheists, and sublists under that list, but nearly everyone on that list is notable for something other than atheism. I hope that makes sense. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Respectfully, WP:OtherStuffExists is not a good argument for keeping. If there are any people on the list of atheists who are not notably athiest (i.e. they could have an article on them regarding their athiesm alone), they should be removed. What matters is the consensus-built guideline (in this case WP:SAL), not any examples of mistaken practice. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely do not rename Quoting again from WP:SAL: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member (e.g. List of people from the Isle of Wight obviously does not include all people from the island). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by [the WP:SAL criteria]. Because of this, "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article." We have finally eliminated almost all lists with "notable"; let's not backslide. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Couldn't we agree to treat this like List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and do it as a combined alphabetical list forthe winners of particular championships? DGG (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Those people all appear to be notable baseball players, given that they all have articles. Quite a different scenario. The few notable people on this debater list are notable as lawyers, politicians, etc, not as debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SAL.--Boffob (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability established, clearly encyclopaedic topic. Unsourced entries should be sourced or removed, which is not an AfD issue. Wily D  14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just silly, now. A list of people not notable for their achievements? Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If neither the achievement nor the people on it are notable, then there shouldn't be a list of the aforementioned. RayAYang (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The quote from WP:stand-alone lists applies here. We aren't writing articles about people who get their notability for being famous competitive debaters, so we should delete this list. Perhaps a category would be suitable. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think a stand-alone list of debaters – which is in fact limited only to university-level competitive debaters – is needed on Wikipedia. University debating is an amateur competition, and people who are successful at it cannot reasonably be compared to members of the Baseball Hall of Fame whose members have a far higher public profile. All the major university debating events have Wikipedia pages, and champions and finalists from those tournaments can be listed at those pages (many already are). A stand-alone list is unnecessary. Singopo (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A summarized international list of official championship winners is worthwhile. HHR (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add that another reason for deleting (though not an especially good one) is that the list is completely unmaintainable. The very people who created it and edit it don't recognise wikipedia definitions of notability, and would not maintain the list in anything approaching the form people here want to salvage it in.  Since people here can't spend all their time policing it, it seems easier to let it be removed.JJJ999 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've contributed to this list, but now it's been nominated for deletion and, on reflection, I don't think Wikipedia really needs a page like this which merely lists university debating tournament finalists, only a very small percentage of whom are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia pages which can be linked to. As Singopo has pointed out, all the tournaments have their own pages, and those pages are a better place for these people to be listed as the context is more clear. Purple Watermelon (talk) 10:19, 9 November 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.