Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizbowl


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quizbowl

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Can never be cited; meandering, unorganizable collection of original research; same reason that National Academic Championship was deleted Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration on deletion nomination
The Quizbowl page is an agglutination of WP:OR about various wholly unrelated interscholastic competitions, Lithuanian game shows, and other things that fall vaguely under the rubric of "quizbowl." Despite being nearly ten thousand words long and having a missing citations notice placed at the top of the page nearly two years ago, the page has all of four citations, exactly one of which leads to a source that has anything whatsoever to do with the claim being cited. Previously, it was decided to delete the National Academic Championship page because of the following rationale found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academic_Championship :

"I have worked with this article on and off for a few months. There are really no reliable sources to cover this article. The article has been greatly pared down, until an an editor asked why it existed in the absence of reliable sources. Searches turned up blogs, message boards, and the company's rather biased home page. Article was deprodded."

The same situation applies to any quizbowl-related topic, and this particular article is already becoming a battleground with rampant WP:COI violations. Since, given the paucity of unbiased sources, it is impossible to ever make this article meet the WP:RS policy, or even make it readable, Wikipedia policy dictates that we must delete it. Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. I am on my high school quizbowl team (in Kansas), and could easily source that section by borrowing a copy of the Kansas Scholar's Bowl rulebook. I'm sure that other editors could do the same with the other sections. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I was the nominator of the National Academic Championship's deletion.  I spent 3-4 months searching for sources ... I even looked in the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times (the tournament routinely used Chicago as a host city), and could find no articles directly addressing the NAC (I found some articles noting winners, but that does not meet WP:V).  There are sources for quizbowl out there.  I will admit that the article is not well written, and could use sourcing and cleanup, but there are sources, and it could be cleaned up.  As I recall, Ken Jennings wrote a book that addressed quizbowl and its community (just for starters) ... I note that the nominator of this article has only been with wikipedia briefly under this user name;  could there be an elaboration on how long a search for sourcing has been ongoing, because I am a bit concerned that my words are being twisted to support a deletion that it should not?  Is an article becoming a battleground for COI a reason to delete?  Protect, delete unreferenced material ... sure ... but delete ... no. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: New York Times article on quizbowl - from google search LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: here's another LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: and another ... The point: with minimal effort and limited time, I found three newspaper articles directly focusing on quizbowl ... and there's at leat one book (noted above).  I think that demonstrates the existence of reliable sources which meets WP:RS and WP:V.LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Could the article be shortened and deleted?  Surely.  But quizbowls are part of the fabric of geek culture (and i mean that in the fondest sense) for high schools and college students, in at least the U.S. (and apparently elsewhere too).--Milowent (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a short history section at the beginning of the article which could use expansion. Articles like Baseball and Tennis also start out with history sections, and I think a similar section here which gives some social context would be useful, before delving into the huge sections on gameplay and rule variations.--Milowent (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While not wholly relevent to the discussion, we have been trying to figure out why Bullofconfusion does not seem to exist in the user creation logs ... it seems this editor came into existence today, and has as quickly vanished??? LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know how creation logs work, but clearly Bullofconfusion is familiar with the workings of wikipedia, and so likely has edited under another account in the past, I would guess. I see he accuses Mensa1960 of violating WP:COI here among his few edits.  If his whole purpose was to nominate this article for deletion, he really should have chosen BOWLofconfusion for his username for maximum comedic effect.  To me the relevance of these facts is that its potentially a bad faith AFD.  This article is going to be kept, and hopefully will be improved, so can we close the AFD now?--Milowent (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I traced the account back, having found the log, and it seems that was a new user account created by, which was created on August 10, 2009 and has all of 3 edits. For someone with only a total of 10 (3+7) contributions, they seem to be disproportionately well versed in wikipedia policy...especially being on wikipedia only a month.Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Vehemently Strong Speedy Keep While the National Academic Championship itself is hardly notable, Quiz bowl as a whole is very notable. That is completely off-topic to compare the entire game of Quiz bowl to the article on a single company that hosts a tournament. The article clearly needs work, and I have previously pared some down to reduce the OR, but that is bullshit to claim that there are no sources and that it can't even be readable! Every single interscholastic competition and Lithuanian game show (what, are you asserting that being Lithuanian makes it marginal?) on the page is quizbowl, not just something that falls vaguely into it just because there are no world-wide rules. Many, many states, countries and organizations have Quiz bowl authorities even though each one is a little different. The fact that there are scores of televised quiz bowl programs are on television provides notability. Although the article does not currently have many references, over a million exist. Ken Jennings wrote an entire book on Quiz bowl, its players, its questions, its history, and similar competitions. Some contributors may have a COI, but we delete that, not the entire article! Reywas92 Talk  20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what I've done to justify everyone on this page not assuming good faith. I've laid out my reasons for why I think the quizbowl page should be deleted in accordance with the Wikipedia process. If the decision is to keep it, I will happily abide by that ruling. Considering that so many quizbowl-related articles are maintained as advertising fiefdoms by the companies that they describe, and trying to get a WP:COI complaint through over this fact is regularly denounced as the equivalent of stalking the editors, I find it an inappropriate double standard for my tenure on Wikipedia to be brought up in an ad-hominem way. I have presented an argument for deleting the article than can stand or fall on its merits, and I hope everyone else can respect policy and not attribute all sorts of motives to me that are neither true nor relevant. Bullofconfusion (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to bite you, it's just not every day you see a month-old editor starting AfD's and talking about COI...apologies if you were offended. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure that it was necessarily a bad-faith nomination ... there are some serious problem with the article, and the editor may have thought (s)he was acting appropriately, but the circumstances are certainly a bit out of the ordinary, and I think it would be natural to raise some questions and check some things out. In any case, I think the drifts have reached waist high, and it may be time to close things down. (edit conflicted) LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, what bollocks, Bullofconfucius! In your nomination explanation you wrote "Since, given the paucity of unbiased sources, it is impossible to ever make this article meet the WP:RS policy, or even make it readable, Wikipedia policy dictates that we must delete it."  DICTATES! IMPOSSIBLE! Haha, don't distance yourself from your own good humour!  In mere minutes, unbiased sources about quizbowls were found easily today from little rags like the NY Times and Boston Globe.  The AfD will ultimately be judged on its merits, of which there are none for deletion.  For improvement, and perhaps deletion of biased statements, yes yes yes. (Lonelybeacon appears to have done some nice work recently)  For deletion, no. no. no.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mensa1960 is hardly the only one with a WP:COI issue. Most of the article has been created by persons who represent various providers of Quiz Bowl questions or tournaments, whether they work for the company directly or just espouse a particular faction's point of view. As a result, the page violates the Wikipedia NPOV standard. Edits that attempt to remove blatantly biased material are routinely re-edited. It also lacks historical perspective on the development of Quiz Bowl and makes assertions that are contrary to fact or unverifiable. Contains original thought as to what constitutes "good" or "standard" formats for questions, competitions, etc., when there is (and can be) no consensus on these issues. Thousands of quiz bowl matches are played each year in dozens of formats. Any claims of superiority are a matter of opinion. Page also violates the "what Wikipedia is not" standards in that it is (2.3) a soapbox (primarily for groups of individuals associated with various Quiz Bowl companies or associations) and (2.9) an unorganized collection of information. It also has the potential to become a battleground. Because of their biases, certain contributors use these pages to pay back grudges, import personal conflicts, nurture hatred and attempt to drive competitors out of business. In fairness, all related pages should be deleted - especially the pages on the various companies. Then all the companies can go back to their fiefdoms and wage war outside of the Wikipedia domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveThinker (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: db-g11;WP:COI; WP:NOR I could go on . . .Strongly support arguments of Bullofconfusion. It doesn't take any long familiarity with Wikipedia editing to determine that this page violates numerous policies. Just read through the objections to his deletion notice. Lovely language.WP:Civility
 * Comment: Congratulations to ObjectiveThinker. The above edit was their first edit on Wikipedia.  I will leave the standard welcome mat on their talk page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, does anyone else find new accounts randomly popping up with knowledge of AfD, COI, NOR, and other policies slightly out of the ordinary? Or is this more common than I think? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty common actually. --  At am a  頭 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Query: Goodness knows some of the accusations flying here could be easily believed, but I went to the article and I am having problems finding evidence of the accusations being made against the article. Could any of the folks supporting deletion provide specific examples from the article as to bias, nurturing of hatred, and use of the article as a soapbox? LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re objective thinker's comment: Who knew that quiz companies are so warlike!!!  To the extent they try to edit content on wikipedia, are they that much different than any other industry? --Milowent (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition: To extent there is bias in the article, the way to deal with that is to whack unsourced parts. here is a Boston Globe piece on some of the rules that can also be integrated. --Milowent (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Responding to LonelyBeacon To understand how the article is being used as a soapbox, you would need to have some understanding of the various Quiz Bowl formats, companies, competitions and history. For anyone with that background, the bias is clear: e.g., Pyramid-style questions are preferred by "better" players (according to whom? - it's not as if there is an AP College Poll). Tossups are referred to as "buzzer beaters." Some teams, players, questions companies and tournament sponsors agree - and it appears that these are the main contributors to this article. Substantial numbers of others do not. For example, many televised competitions contain few pyramid-style questions because they slow the pace of the game. This article is written in such as way as to imply that there is a degree of standardization in Quiz Bowl that simply does not exist and probably never will. And I merely observed that it has the *potential* to become a battleground, much like the deleted article on the National Academic Championship. (If you want to see warlike, just Google a few of the companies mentioned in this article. As a retired teacher, I am apalled by the poor sportsmanship and general incivility. Honestly,you would think Quiz Bowl is run by soccer hooligans.)


 * Comment: Responding to MilowentYour Boston Globe piece explains the rules for college Quiz Bowl competitions. There is no standardization among high school tournaments. To cite any set of rules to the exclusion of others inserts bias.
 * Let's get some references in there then. I can't judge whether you are right or wrong on this point.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Responding to (TI have edited Wiki projects for school systems and have been involved with social networks since the days of message boards. Unlike Quiz Bowl, standards for objectivity and fair play are relatively standard across platforms.


 * Comment: I still believe that deletion is the wisest course of action. If retained, the article should be pared to basic *useful* facts, such as a listing of current and former competitions. Any discussion of formats, scoring, questions, etc. would have to be policed regularly to make sure that bias is not creeping back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveThinker (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No way should this be getting deleted, ObjectiveThinker. Its a notable competitive game played in high school and colleges, even if the rules vary from place to place.  There are a slew of articles in newspapers about quizbowl competitions.  I think the Jonas Brothers needs much more policing that this, but we don't delete those articles because of vandals.--Milowent (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the article needs improvement, but the topic is notable, and the article certainly isn't bad enough to warrant deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep—just because the article has several major flaws doesn't mean it should be deleted. As others have pointed out, there are many reliable sources that can be used.  The article should be rewritten, not deleted.  RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  06:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment don't know if this has already been mentioned, but Brainiac pp. 28-37 has a detailed description of quiz bowl. RJaguar3 |  u  |  t  06:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. I was able to access most of that section of the book via Google Books and inserted a number of in-line citations based on it.  Parts of this article go into such detail, it will be hard to find citations for details on the various formats of gameplay unless we have access to the rules of some of these organization - I suspect they are online, though. --Milowent (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepIf the numerous issues are corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mensa1960 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Per WP:SNOW, though I'm not inclined to do it. --  At am a  頭 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Well written, well sourced article. --AStanhope (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - If you delete our article, we will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasse (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (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.