Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Universities Debating Ranking


 * 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 merge with World Universities Debating Championships. This has already been carried out, and so this article will be converted into a redirect to preserve GFDL. Neil  ム  14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Ranking

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is about an entirely unofficial set of rankings for universities at the World Universities Debating Championships. The rankings were compiled by the creator of the World Debating Website, who freely admits that the rankings are completely unofficial at this page. This info is of interest to people who go to the World Debating Website, but it doesn't belong on an international encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Singopo 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a collection of random (possibly unverifiable) stats B figura  (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree that this ranking is not an official one, but this is the only ranking currently debating arena follows. Its methodology is fare enough and there is no controversy regarding this ranking. If you consider de facto, it values a lot but de jure this is meaningless.
 * I took an initiative to organize debate related people from different parts of the world to work together under a wiki project, WikiProject Debating. This project and this ranking was my first step and I hope you would be more tolerant with this type of articles in future. Btw, what do you mean by international encyclopedia? I guess a new definition is waiting for the world :-p . Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Initially I removed the deletion tag from the main article but soon after I changed my mind and decided to go for a debate with you. I have gone through your edits and found you a controversial editor at almost all the pages. I hope you won't mind having a hot debate with me here. Would you please answer me following question?
 * Is it necessary for any WP article to be an official one?
 * This article is prepared based on official score. Do you think those are not sufficient enough as official source?
 * You didn't write a single line on the talk page and straight went for the deletion. May I know why?
 * Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The ranking clearly is an unofficial one. The World Debate website page clearly states that: "This is an unofficial ranking" (with the word "unofficial" both bolded and underlined on the page). That doesn't mean it has no place in Wikipedia, but it does in my opinion means that it does not merit its own individual page, which implies it has more status than it really does. I have now added this info as a new section on World Universities Debating Championship page, which is where I think it belongs (since that rankings are based only on that competition and not any other). I am in no way questioning the accuracy of the rankings, just whether or not they merit an individual page. I have considerable respect for Colm Flynn and his website, but I think Colm would readily agree that these rankings were simply a personal project of his for which the methodology was not widely discussed or agreed upon, and which were never intended to take on any official status (even if some people have subsequently chosen to view them as such). Perhaps I should have discussed this first (although that's not necessarily an expectation on Wikipedia when we're looking deletion rather than content changes), but that does not change my view that these unofficial rankings should not be given their own individual page. Singopo 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete / Merge to World Universities Debating Championship. I agree with Singopo that this info should be on the WUDC page rather than its own separate page. Purple Watermelon 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I never called it an official ranking as the page itself describing it as an unofficial one. But its methodology is quite clear and also mentioned on the Colm's page. By the way, I have another question, what do you mean by official? What will be the criteria for any issue to be considered as official? WUDC page is getting larger and WP has a policy to divide 32KB page into different sub-pages. I can't understand why you people are ready to accept this info on the WUDC page but not on a separate page. Purple Watermelon, would you please explain it? Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No way! You are merging this article with a 49KB large article!! I can't believe!!! Please someone make them understand the fact. Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 32KB article size limit is no longer a Wikipedia policy (see: Article size). Indeed it has not been for quite some time. There is a good deal of content at the WUDC page, but I don't think there's any stylistic or readability problem with that becuase it's neatly broken up into sections, and much of the information is contained in tables. I think the WUDC page is the right page for this info, and I don't see that putting it there causes any problem at all. I think the way Singopo has put it into a new section looks and reads very nicely. Purple Watermelon 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you want to go with the deletion or a merger? If you (and Singopo as well) prefer a merger then we may stop this debate here and propose a merger. I'll show my arguments against the merger at that new debate. Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  01:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. This discussion is not just between you, me and Singopo. Other people have also come to this page and expressed their opinions, some of whom seem to have firmer views that I do in favour of deleting as opposed to merging (I don't have a strong preference, but I'm strongly opposed to the rankings continuing to have an individual page). Now that this deletion debate is underway, only a Wikipedia admin can legitimately close it (and that usually happens a week after it opens). Purple Watermelon 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. I would consider this merge-worthy if some third-party sources can be found to attest that this ranking, though unofficial, really is followed by the debating teams involved. At the moment, there are no independent sources at all. — mholland (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your argument. Actually this is the only ranking followed by the debating arena. As debating federations are not well organized they usually do not maintain any official registered site but they maintain web-blogs. Can we consider those blogs as third party reference? If so, then I can show you as many supporting references as you want.
 * Moreover, Singopo accepted to keep this content on WP as he changed his mind from deletion to a merger. But WUDC article itself is 49KB. Should we put more content on it instead of splitting it into some sub-articles? - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs don't usually meet WP:RS (but do read WP:RS to see if any of the blogs meet the guideline). I'd be more persuaded by a newspaper report about a society or a competition, which mentions this ranking in relation to any of the teams listed.  Remember that the primary notability criterion for inclusion is multiple, non-trivial, reliable coverage which is independent of the subject of the article. As for the length of World Universities Debating Championship, the organisation of the material is of secondary importance to getting it referenced and verified.  I would have no problem with a 60kB article in the short term. — mholland (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Of course the article is notable. If it's the only ranking recognised and followed by the debating arena then, of course, it is notable. Scar ian  Talk  15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have already stated my arguments. - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. OK I hope I'm entering my contribution to the discussion in the correct way.  My name is Colm Flynn.  I'm the creater of the ranking and the founder of the World Debating Website.  I'm also a former Chair of the World Debating Council anf DCA of Worlds in the past.  I think the ranking is valid.  It is unofficial BUT it is the only ranking currently available and is used by a number of institutions when reporting their progress up or down the rankngs to their sponsors (Not everyone can win or break and this ranking is the only other accepted measure of success).  This year the WUPID will be held in Kuala Lumpur just before Worlds in Thailand.  This tournament is invitation only and the top 30 colleges in the world are being invited to take part.  The top 30 are determined by this ranking.  As to the argument that this is ranking is only of interest to a small number of people well firstly the World Debating Championships are regarded as the second largest student competition in the world after the World Student Games in athletics.  Up to 1200 people take part as competitors, judges or observers every year.  Also if every article of interest to less people than that were deleted then Wikipedia would become a very small website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmflynn (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Colmflynn had made only 5 Wikipedia edits prior to this comment.


 * Delete. I mean no disrespect to Colm Flynn, who I think had done a superb job of archiving past WUDC results on his website over the past few years. But these rankings are nothing more than a personal initiative of his. They’re not sanctioned by WUDC or the Worlds Council. As much as I admire Colm’s work, these rankings amount to what Wikipedia would consider original research by the creator of a blog website about debating. The methodology used is clear, but is purely Colm’s creation and is open to criticism (I for one think that the fact that the methodology makes no adjustment for the number of teams a university has entered, giving institutions who can afford to send a large number of teams every year a huge advantage in the rankings, is problematic – but that’s not the point right now). Claims that these rankings are widely followed are unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. Beyond the fact that one random invitational tournament in Malaysia has chosen to use them for its invitation criteria, there’s nothing else to prove that these rankings are anything more than a minor curiosity for people who visit Colm’s website. They don’t belong on Wikipedia. They belong at Colm’s website, which is linked to at the WUDC page for anybody looking for it. Dorange 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dorange, who added the note regarding Colm’s edit himself has got only 139 edits with an average edit of 6.31 per month. Even he doesn’t have any significant contribution at WP other than on the RHUL page. I do not value edit count much but had to put this statistics here just because of his interest in counting others edit count :-p.


 * Now let me refute some of your points.
 * You said Colm’s ranking is an original research. I do agree with you. But when someone willingly agrees to allow WP to use his original research, should we have any say against it? I guess no.


 * You said Colm’s ranking is open to criticism. I do agree but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be considered as an article on WP. Times Higher Education Supplement university- ranking has got huge flaws but still it is one of the best university ranking. You cannot find anything absolutely perfect in the real world. Absolute perfection is a utopian concept.


 * You said “there’s nothing else to prove that these rankings are anything more than a minor curiosity for people who visit Colm’s website.” Do you have any reference to prove your statement? We are not ready to accept whatever you say without any proper citation. After WP standard :-p.


 * I must say it’s an intentional attack on Colm’s ranking from a group of new wikipedians. I doubt, some of them are actually same person using multiple ids just to increase votes against this issue. Administrators, would you please check their IPs and ensure that they are not same person? Finally we are ready to submit a reference letter from the world debate council supporting this ranking. Will that do? Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. May I ask who makes the decision on deletion of an article. If there is no common ground between those who believe this is a fringe activity and wish to delete the article and those who see value in it and wish to keep it who makes the decision? As to the accusation that it is unverifiable that anyone takes an interest in the ranking then I will gadly forward the many e-mails I get next January asking me when the ranking will be updated from colleges who have to report back to their sponsors. May I also ask is there a major slimming down of articles in Wikipedia because a quick browse through will yield thoudands of articles which in my opinion are equally irrelevant to all but a handful of people but which I recognise are important to those handful of people. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has been an encliopedia for everyone where fringe facts and details can find a home. If there is an active initiative to remove articles which some people have no inerest in then what will differentiate wikipedia from a CD of Britannica other than the ability to vandalise it? cflynn 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Also may I ask why has someone found it necessary to point out that I have only made 5 edits to Wilipedia in the past. I'm somewhat surprised by the low number of 5 but will admit it is certainly not more than 50. Does the fact that I only edit articles on which I believe I have an authority to speak mean that my input is less valued than the input of someone who imposes themselves on a vast array of subjects to which they have no connection? cflynn 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Responses to Niaz and Colm: Let me say again that I mean no disrespect to Colm, who is great archivist of the WUDC, or Niaz, whose efforts to start up a debating Wikiproject are commendable. But there's some things I must point out here:


 * Wikipedia has a policy of not publicising original research. See: No original research


 * For something to be considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards, the information must be available in the public domain. There's nothing out there that can currently verify that these rankings have a wide following. Personal emails and private letters expressing interest in and support of them are not in the public domain (and even if they were, it would take more than a small number of emails or letters to verify a wide following). See: Verifiability


 * Generally on Wikipedia AfD pages it is pointed out when someone who has only a tiny number of edits or who is very new to Wikipedia enters the debate. It's a common practice as it indicates that the person may be unfamilar with Wikipedia policies and norms. I was merely following a common practice when I made a note based on Colm's contribution history. See: Articles for deletion


 * I'll say it again, I mean no disrespect to Colm and Niaz. But I think they believe that these rankings have more notability (as Wikipedia defines that word) than they actually have. They cannot reasonably be compared to the Times university rankings which are created by a very established organisation and are widely referenced in other sources around the world. Dorange 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't compare this ranking with THES, and also agree that in no way these two rankings are comparable. What I tried to mean is, if a famous ranking like THES has got criticism against it, then it is quite expected to have some criticism against/on this ranking.
 * Well, this is an original research and I agreed with this point. But when it would be published formally and author himself allowed WP to use this ranking, I guess there won't be any problem regarding NOR policy. Most importantly, author of this original research is also a wikipedian working on this issue. I believe this is one of the biggest advantages for WP to organize debating related articles in a proper way.
 * Finally, thanks for the compliment and I would be happy if you also join the project. Whatever we do, at the end of the day we are here to develop WP as a reputed encyclopedia and I believe, your contribution will value a lot. Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - According to WikiProject Debating and judging by Niaz and Scarian's comment, this entry meets the notability. --NAHID 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Given that the rankings are based solely on WUDC results, I think this content fits into that entry well. Padraic 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge There is clearly no basis for supporting a separate article--there is no independent notability apart from the organization, and I am not sure there would be even if it became formally published. DGG (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The two reasons of deleting apparent from the discussion above are - 1) the ranking is not official and 2) original research. I don't think being "officially recognized" is a criteria of inclusion into wikipedia for any kind of article. Wikipedia is not censored. Original research would be a concern if Colm Flynn would have created the article. But that is not the case. Last but not least, the notability of the ranking seems well established from this discussion and the sheer number of google hits for "World Debate Website".
 * However, I would politely discourage Colm Flynn to make any additions / changes to this article because that would be against the spirit of WP:OR. Arman Aziz 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * delete- nothing more than a personal initiative of his. Bad rankings anyway, because they assume every year universities can send the same number of contingents, which numps down competetive, but smaller, unis, in favour of big ones who send the full complement of teams each year.  Scrap. Jembot99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny and purely based on hate. Btw, at first try to learn how to work on WP. Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting assertion. The logic you propose seems to be "Colm is someone who has done alot of work, and his page gets alot of hits" therefore "anything he writes on his page is a serious thing".  I disagree with this notion.  This doesn't need a page all of its own, it's also not a very accurate list anyway, and I think alot of people found much of it pretty amusing.Jembot99 07:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Strike- this has been going over 5 days now, can we just kill it already? the page has been merged already bythe creators anyhow, so it's moot.JJJ999 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So far 5 delete, 5 keep and 3 merge. What would be the final decision? Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're asking me, assumedly it would be merge, a result I think is implicit in the delete remarks, and which I'd be happy to accept. In fact, the author has already done so.JJJ999 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some editor who voted for merge created a section in the main article and provided a short description of the this ranking there. But still I strongly vote for keeping a separate article on this ranking. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with Merge, acknowledging that the information appears to have already been merged into the WUDC article. Official status doesn't have an impact on whether a topic gets an article on WP - but it certainly gives a boost to notability. That said, there isn't enough independent data to prove that the subject is notable enough for its own article. It works well as an aspect of the WUDC article, so I would recommend that we leave it at that.ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I realize that this AFD is filled with skilled and tenacious debaters, but we all really need to take a step back and relax. Have a cup of Coffee, perhaps. We're all on the same team here... except when we're not. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:21, 18 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.