Talk:Debaters Association of Victoria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Debaters Association of Victoria is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] General comments about page
nm, I posted possible infringement... isn't one apparently
Page lacks references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Various markers
I'd dispute some of the labels that have been attached at the start of this page. Without having any detailed knowledge of this organisation's structure, I'd already question the "notability" question mark being placed over the page. From my angle, I believe that this has been very clearly established in the page itself, in that "it is the largest single debating competition in Australia and one of the largest in the world". I don't believe that this is in any way ambiguous. Perhaps more puzzlingly was the suggestion that this lacks neutrality. I'm all for a strict policy on POV in order to preserve Wikipedia's integrity, but I think it's going a bit far in this case. Citing sources is one thing, but the article seems relatively straightforward in terms of its structure and content. I've already changed the only part of the individual section marked with the POV markup that seems remotely POV ("debating legend" changed to "notable Australian debater").
I'm removing mark-up where I believe it to be appropriate, because the person(s) who placed such identifiers onto the page did not think to substantiate them on the talk page. However, further discussion of this can be discussed here. Cyril Washbrook 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I personally believe it is notable, but I do not believe the various "citations" show this, which they are obligated to do. The other tags are also appropriate.JJJ999 08:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability for Victorian Schools Debating Team list
Two users over the last few days have reinstated the historical list for the Victorian Schools Debating Team. Having examined the guidelines for notability, conflicts of interest and more informally WP:NOT, I would argue that the list fails the notability test. While other elements of the article should most likely be given the benefit of the doubt, the historical list of Victorian Schools Debating Team members does not meet the "significant coverage" criterion, because it relies upon unsourced original research, most likely performed by someone with a conflict of interest. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, serious COI issues could arise, but at the same time the basis for notability is that the subject of the article must be notable, not that all the information about the subject within that article in turn must also be noteworthy. I am sure many trivial facts about public figures would fail this test, but they are there precisely because this is an encyclopaedia. If the subject is noteworthy, then this list could be too, it cannot be struck out on the basis of possible vanity from unproven COIs.JJJ999 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- At the very least, it's relatively easy to prove that it's original research, because it's not available in any materials found anywhere on a public domain resource, and certainly not even on the public materials found on the Debaters Association of Victoria website. Furthermore, on the matter of conflicts of interest, I should probably note that I can personally identify two users who are responsible for the section in dispute as being former members of the team and who are still highly active in debating circles. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unless anyone is disputing the factual basis, I don't think it can be characterised as OR. It would just be nice to have a citation tag on the page (as there is), urging someone to get a reference to justify the claims, and warning 3rd party readers that is lacks citations.JJJ999 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, I am not 'responsible for the section in dispute'; it was created by another and I have simply corrected some details. I have no opinion regarding notability other than to note that [[List of debaters][ has similar content without its notability being questioned. I would have no objection to the deletion of the list for non-notability. Further, could those suggesting COI please review the WP:COI and take note of the reminders to act with civility and assume good faith. W.Ross (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- At the very least, it's relatively easy to prove that it's original research, because it's not available in any materials found anywhere on a public domain resource, and certainly not even on the public materials found on the Debaters Association of Victoria website. Furthermore, on the matter of conflicts of interest, I should probably note that I can personally identify two users who are responsible for the section in dispute as being former members of the team and who are still highly active in debating circles. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
