Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Public Speaking Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Although the article indicated enough importance/significance as noted by the keep reasoning, that would only get it past CSD A7. It is clear from the discussion that there is not enough reliable source material independent of World Public Speaking Championship to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Public Speaking Championship

World Public Speaking Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am sympathetic to debating related comps and organizations of sufficient note getting their own pages, I created one for that matter. I am wholly unconvinced however that this is meets such note. Firstly, I observe that the high school championship has no link or references, very few years and appears to be defunct. I made a brief Google search, and found nothing that convinced me it is a serious comp. What criteria did they have? How inclusive was it? I am also in great doubt about the other two. Toastmasters seems to belong on the toastmaster page, assuming such a small comp can be noteworthy, and the public world one belongs on the WUDC page, as a subset of WUDC, which is what it is. What next? A page for the Comedy contest (usually consisting of 5-7 entries, and conducted in an informal manner, usually by drunk debaters? delete it JJJ999 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: why was it not first tagged as unreferenced, and/or notability? I agree it has no evidence of notability, but it would have been good to ask for it before coming to AfD. Dicklyon 04:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- My curiosity about the referencing mainly concerns the high school comp, as I am well familiar with the other two comps. The WUDC usually has a handful of entrants, perhaps 6 or so, and happens as one of the many sub-events at the WUDC, so it should go on their page. Toastmasters I also know, doubt very much it is notable, and think it also belongs on their page. The HS comp, whatever it is, seems self evidently unnotable because I searched Google and didn't see anything of note, and because of the incredibly limited infor they provide on it, including whether it even exists anymore. Thus referencing was not the decisive factor in my vote to remove.JJJ999 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Loath as I am to cite procedural rules, you can't vote twice JJJ999. (You may cross through a prior boldface vote by putting < s > on one side and < /s > on the other side, and a line crosses through the text ). Second, if you have reason to believe that the author of the article is not being truthful, then the term is "probable hoax". That is what you're talking about, isn't it? Very good. Mandsford 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Author"? No, we're talking about you. Did you or did you not post the misleading/false number of 148,000 hits for this page? And if so, why should your vote be taken seriously, it appears to be blatantly false...JJJ999 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no "we" about it, JJJ. You are the first, and so far the only person I've seen who "gone too far" in trying to offend. Let me advise you that calling ANYONE on this board a "liar" will eventually get you in trouble. I gave you a chance to back out of this gracefully, and you kept on. If you do this one more time to anyone in a debate... not just me, but anyone else... count on getting reported. We all have to be civil. I have my moments, but even on my worst day, I've never been under the impression that anybody in AfD would care enough to "lie" about an article. No clever response, please, no trying to make an excuse for it. DO NOT, ever again, call anyone on this board a liar. Mandsford 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand by my question. And you may refer it to the mods. Your response also indicates you are attempting the "shout loudly" variety or rebuttal. If you don't answer it'll be me asking the Mods about conduct for lying anyway, so feel free to draw it to their attention. Now, you claim here the following: "Notable in the world of college and high school debating. It's found more often under "Toastmasters", where the championship returns 148,000+ ghits Mandsford 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) " I observe, upon 3 google searches of the relevant terms that it produces 278, 1 and 200 hits accordingly, and ask you where you got the 148,000 from, and if you either made it up, or lied. Unless my google is broken these seem to be the 2 possibilities. If either is true, it seems like we shouldn't take your vote seriously, and I will put that to the mods too.JJJ999 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I may have been mistaken... I did a quick Google search and that's what I came up with when I typed in "Toastmasters" and "public speaking championship" and in which case, you merely say, "you're mistaken". Or you can say that my vote shouldn't be taken seriously. BUT you don't go around calling people liars. Personal attacks--- and that's exactly what the problem is -- are barred. None of us care enough about the "World Public Speaking Championship" THAT much. You can tell the rest to the moderator. Mandsford 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and start from scratch if notable. I had no idea this competition even existed, but the current version shows no evidence of notability, and competely lacks sources, so it also fails WP:V. SefringleTalk 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This seems to be about more than one competition, and possibly more than one organization, though it is hard to tell form the information presented. The nom stated that one of the 3 is defunct, but the other two are clearly not defunct. This needs rewriting for clarity, but if they are related then I think this one is the article to keep-- not the ones on the individual series. But perhaps start from scratch might do it best.DGG (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments made by Mandsford and DGG. The Google results are compelling and the organization seems notable enough. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the comedy escalates- Google search - Do I even need to explain what this link is to? Nice try though. To think I doubted your first, second third explanation. So, where did that number come from again? I'll be charitable and assume you searched without quotation, which means the search was meaningless. thanks though, moments of catharsis like this don't come easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, some mods need to get into the Act, the comments of guys like Le Grand Roi make me think that people are rounding up friends, even if it is a co-incidence. There is no "organisation", they HAVE a page for the "organisation", this is a sub-event of that organisation, which can go on their page... for heavens sake, one has 6 entrants per year on an ad-hoc basis, the other is defunct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not you Roi, the other guy.JJJ999 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I have yet to see an explanation provided that he is not lying, and evidence points that way. If you prefer we can use other words, but I've seen imputations of this sort made by mods, I don't see why I have to act as though I believe he is being honest in his arguments, common sense leads me to the belief that a reasonable person would assume the contrary, even if I can't know his intention for certain. I don't see how you can assert credibility Roi. Even his last claimed search features 2170 hits, which when you check the pages comes to 50... one of the comps has 1 hit, which is this wiki page.JJJ999 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The events listed are notable. The Google hits argument is completely irrelevant. Alansohn 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No doubt Roi will be removing his keep vote now that the person on who he bases his reasoning ("as per Mand") has withdrawn his keep... I just don't understand how anyone who isn't partisan can vote to keep this. About 6 people worldwide nominate to the WUDC 'public speaking comp' per year... how can such a small, sub-event of WUDC get it's own page. Toastmasters belongs on it's own page, and the other one doesn't exist anymore... what is the tenuous basis for this article?JJJ999 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't mean to be rude, but DGG has a "weak keep" and the conditions for his weak keep aren't even met, he probably just hasn't readthis page lately. "if the 3 competitions are related, this is the page to keep" (as opposed to the other pages, like the toastmasters or WUDC ones I assume). Thus his keep is on the basis that we remove the WUDC and Toastmasters page, in favour of this one, which nobody is proposing. But the competitions are in no way related, they are organised by totally different people, and have been arbitrarily sewn together to justify an extra article. One of them is defunct for heavens sake, if it ever existed (of which he have no proof or information), and the other has 6 nomintions on average per year, and is an ad-hoc comp for some bored adjudicators to do at WUDC. The last is just one of Toastmasters many comps, and no info is presented to justify it's significance. This is all amply kept on their own pages!JJJ999 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello! Yes, I think DGG makes a good argument, but it is not the only reason why I think the article should be kept. Aside from my general inclusionist beliefs, this particular organization does seem fairly notable, even if it doesn't have as many Google hits as initially thought, and it still seems that sources are available and that this article can be developed. Something that has been around since the 1930s and that has been held in multiple states and countries, i.e. the different competitions, strike me as notable enough for an article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope nobody is using my own reasons as an excuse for their own. I have been asked on my talk page whether I wish to change my comment, and I do not. In particular, I do not see that the fact that a competition has ceased means that it was not significant. And if i am wrong, which is certainly possible, the arguments of those opposed will be more convincing. I'm not arbitrating this, just giving my personal opinion. As I've said before, I and others who use the terms usually say weak keep or weak delete when we mean that in our eyes the other opinion is also plausible.DGG (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But why on earth can't the one section of interest, if it is indeed notable (and no references or sources have been presented to back this fact up at all) be put on the toastmaste page? It bears no relation to these other two comps... the page has no function. It would like me creating a page called "Moderators of note" and then arbitrarily inserting 3 boards who I believe to have great mods, then a list of who they chose for mod of the year each year. There is no connection or justification for this being a page. As for the one arguable section, toastmasters, beyond the merge issue, there is just nothing to back up it's veracity. They could be accurate... but then they could be wrong... I think more is needed to justify an entirely different page to toastmasters. I find this sort of thing very frustrating, I also find it very hard to take in good faith any of the remarks from keep people like Roi or DGG. They list their reasons, those reasons get disproven, and so they change them. Everything DGG based his "weak keep" on before was flat out disproven, yet he still wants to keep it because we can't prove a negative. No, we haven't proven a negative, but it must be gratingly obvious that applying Occams razor, and noting the utter lack of proof from the keep side, as opposed to the clear evidence that a) these competitions have no connection to each other, b) at least 2 of them are disingenuous, the 3rd probably is (can we prove a negative like this? No. But given the author has been wrong 2/3 times so far, I think the presumption should be against this uncited, undefended thing). The fact that Roi refers to "this organisation" about an article which discusses 3 utterly distinct events says it all, I hope some mods will come and vote this fraudulent article out of existence. When you click on the final page you see 18 hits for the first comp... 18 hits! On blogs! The 2nd has 0 (except this page), and the 3rd has 22! 22! Roi and DGG believe what they want to, it is not based on any reasoningJJJ999 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Roi, DGG, and Alansohn. I can only hope that it will be awhile before this is "relisted to generate a more thorough debate". I count thirteen arguments against the article, twelve of them from my good friend. Mandsford 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • hahaha, and now you're reverting to your keep again? Man, I hope the mods delete this. You guys haven't presented one argument to back this up... all your votes should be ignored IMO.JJJ999 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thirteen... thirteen.... do I hear fourteen? Mandsford 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 16 actually, because I am assuming bad faith from you, Roi and DGG. You don't even pretend to have a reason... you've now gone from delete to keep, just because you think other people will support you, there is no reason presented for this sudden change of heart.JJJ999 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Keep and clean up- the article definitely needs sourcing if that is possible, but the appropriate first step is to tag the article and request sources. That was not done. Lack of sourcing is not a reason to delete (at least not without giving editors a chance to fix the problem). I note that a few internal links have been added since the AfD was filed... that is a start. If no sources are forthcoming after a few weeks or longer ... re-nominate. Blueboar 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If it is kept, you may count upon it being renominated within 2 weeks, no amount of editing can resurrect this bit of drivel.JJJ999 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; the article's topic was invented to cover multiple actual notable topics, but was cast as a proper noun as if there was such an actual topic. I'd call it an ideosynchratic non-topic, certainly not anything notable; nobody has cited anything like a reliable source that would support the existence of such a thing. Why is this article here? It's like an extend disambig to the actual topics. Dicklyon 06:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dicklyon. This is an unnecessary attempt at a DAB for some things that aren't exactly parallel and would be handled better under other parent articles:
  • The article title, 'World Public Speaking Championship' seems to have troubles with WP:NEO, since that doesn't appear to be a generally-recognized term with a fixed meaning.
  • The thing called by Toastmasters the 'World Public Speaking Championship', in spite of the portentous name, is listed in a rather low-key way on their web site. While the article on the Toastmasters organization is certainly interesting and appropriate, a separate article for their championship seems hard to justify.
  • The tables of winners in the present article are verbosely listed back into the 1940s with no seeming attempt at relevance. (Out of 91 speaker names, only 6 are blue links).
  • As other editors have hinted, the World High School Public Speaking Championship may not exist at all. (In my hands, Google found nothing under that name besides the mention in the present article). Note that there are is one blue link for an individual winner of the High School Championship called Kristopher Ade. Click on his WP article link and note that he is said to have won the World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championships (an individual competition) in the year 2000, and participated in another event called the World Schools Debating Championship (a team competition), neither of which are mentioned in this article.
  • I found some of the nominator's remarks unfortunate and I suggest he step away from the discussion for a little time to allow tempers to cool. EdJohnston 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this page continues to exist, it should be only as a short disambiguation page. I think these events so deserve to be recorded on Wikipedia, but should be in different places. The high school one in fact refers to the World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championships, which already has its own page with a more complete record. The debating one is in fact a minor side-show at the World Universities Debating Championship, and is noted at that page (it's not really a world championship in its own right). The Toastmasters one seems like an established long-running event, so should probably either have its own page or have its winners noted at the Toastmasters International page. Dorange 00:01, 23 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.