Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugo Deb Net

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--JForget 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yugo Deb Net

Yugo Deb Net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

delete- This body is totally unnoteworthy, and the creators pet project is to build ego pages for people from the WSDC, a body barely meriting its own page. Jembot99 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a significant debating society involving students from several universities across Serbia and Montenegro. I created this page, initially because it was a red link on the European Universities Debating Championship page, but I think it deserves to stay. Yugo Deb Net has entered teams in major internation competitons such as the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship, and has produced the best individual speaker at the European championships. (I think the nominator is a bit confused. Yugo Deb Net is a university-level society, and has nothing to do with WSDC.) Purple Watermelon 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, just don't think it's notable... and would you please stop editing articles nominated so much? Or mention in this discussion exactly what edits you've made.JJJ999 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You've given no explanation as to why you believe Yugo Deb Net is not notable. And as for editing articles that are being considered for deletion, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy which prohibits this or which requires small changes to such articles to be mentioned on the AfD page. If there's a Wikipedia policy I'm not aware of regarding this, please point me to it. Purple Watermelon 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I've seen it noted repeatedly as being against the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe you've been told as much on some of the pages we've been discussing... I can point this out to you sometime if you like.JJJ999 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Universities_Debating_Ranking - per Arman Aziz. Have fun.JJJ999 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Arman Aziz made no comment whatosoever to me on that page. What he did was suggest that Colm Flynn should not edit that article as the rankings were his own originial research. The only person I've ever come across who's suggested that attempting to improve an article being considered for deletion goes against the spirit of Wikipedia is you. Purple Watermelon 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Don't have time to get a Mod ruling on it, and I certainly think that it was more than original research, but as a courtesy, which I think you should note your edits for.JJJ999 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment editing articles to improve them while at AfD is not just permitted, but highly encouraged, per WP:AFD and WP:Deletion policy. The ideal AfD discussion leads to a good article and a withdrawn nomination. It is usual to say you've done it, so those who have commented previously will know to go back and see the improvements and consider if they are sufficient. The usual COI considerations of course apply. DGG (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps the information presented in the article could be moved to another article. I see no evidence of notability in the article and a Google search turns up less than 20 results (I put the name in quotes) and none of them with any substantial information on the organization, so not only does the article not meet WP:Notability but there is no evidence that it ever can meet it. If anyone can add sources meeting WP:Notability standards before this deletion discussion is over, please contact me and I'll change my vote. Noroton 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you look at the page on the EUDC and other major debating tournaments, all the organisations who've had someone ranked as best speaker have a wikilink. This body is not an individual university, but a body which brings together top university debaters from across two nations to compete in the top international debating tournaments, and has enjoyed significant success in some of them. Dorange 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is possible that many sources for this topic are on non-english sites, which would prevent them from showing up in the typical google search. If the organization has participated in major events held by notable international federations, however - there should be something in English somewhere. The absence of those sources is hinky. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There are three references in the article at the moment. Two from the World Universities Debating Council's website, and one from the World Debate Website. I would have thought this enough to verify the organisation's status. Purple Watermelon 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Non-notable. Dureo 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant and context-less. What does a debate team have to do with anything? User:Gp75motorsports 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re: Purple Watermelon, above: If the issue is notability, as is claimed by some, then additional sources would prove the point - even if those sources are non-english. The sources in place are good, but more wouldn't hurt. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. That said, it's daft for the nominator to say that improving articles is "against the spirit of Wikipedia". Any good topic can have a bad article. The goal is improving the encyclopedia, not putting articles (or editors) on trial. A nominator should be happy to see an article worked on, instead of seeing their moment of glory slip away. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey wait! Shouldn't this debate be over by now? Gp75motorsports 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--
It was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence
  • Delete It shoulda been over last week. Despite the improvements, Yugo Deb Net is still just a debating association that has seen some moderate success in competition, with a speaker who won a trophy six years ago. Hopefully, Turaljic rates a mention somewhere besides this article. Mandsford 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Move to Strike- let's get rid of this now please, clear consensusJJJ999 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


JUST DELETE IT ALREADY! CLEARLY AGAINST WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES!!!! RE: @ Above, last aboe Arman Aziz: I agree, JJJ999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the screaming. It's just an irrelevant article, and I like articles that follow guidelines. --Gp75motorsports 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The issue is that the sources provided - though sound, if we AGF - are not enough to establish Notability of the subject. My Serbian is spotty at best, but I can find no non-english sources that even appear to reference this organization or acknowledge its existance. I stress that I am not an authority on the subject - but the lack of additional sources, even non-english ones, is telling. I'll note further that the article itself does not assert the notability of its topic. With all respect, the consensus is clearly that the article must improve or be deleted. If, in 10 days and counting of this AFD, it has not been improved at all, and no additional verifiable sources added despite repeated requests for same, then there's no recourse - consensus must be served. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it incredible that articles like this are not bumped off in a hurry, yet ones that are marginal in voting are. This should have been trashed weeks ago.JJJ999 13:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is where I leave. Any more "input" from me would be non-constructive. --Gp75motorsports 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • and on the farce continues...JJJ999 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and no assertion to the contrary after 2 weeks to ponder the deletion. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 2 October 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.