Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public forum debate

Public forum debate

These articles appear to have been created as spin-offs of National Forensic League. They make no assertions of the notability of each individual part of the (admittedly notable) NFL competition - notability is not inherited. It is unlikely to the point of impossiblity that evidence of such notability can be found. None of these articles provide any reliable sources to verify the claims (or indeed any sources at all), making it impossible to differentiate between verifiable fact and original research. This is significant only as it is doubtful that reliable sources can be found. In the absence of an encyclopaedic coverage, most of the articles incorporate (or incorporated) lists of past winners or other unnecessary and unecyclopaedic information. I have ommitted from this nomination the only article that I believe has the potential to assert its notability (Lincoln-Douglas Debate). While I dislike block nominations as much as any, these articles really are peas in a pod. That pod is, unfortunately, not one of ours. Happy‑melon 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD concerns the following articles:

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These are definitly noteable! There have been mountains of literature devoted to these events. For Instance, the Rostrum, which is admittadly is published by the NFL, and is hence in some ways "self-published," has dozens of articles on Public Forum, Original Oratory and US Extemp, Duo Interp. While this may scare off some as self-published, they are written by people with no conflict interest by working for the NFL, teachers and professors who coach the events, and while some may be advice for the events, many document changes in the ways the events have changed over the years. I'll work on finding more indepedent articles soon, but for now, I have to say that I am very surprised these notable topics are up for deletion.

Although, I'm happy to see that the best event (LD) was the onoly one spared ;) Also, why did you not nominate Policy Debate? I understand it's obviously notable, but it too is assoicated with the NFL.

And though it doesn't really help my "side" I should note that many people are probably going to want to merge this with Individual events (speech).--Ybbor^Talk 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, here are some more resources, from a first sweep through Amazon: this book devotes dozens of pages to each major event. this book is devoted entirely to documenting the procedures of Student Congress [1]. The following to Public forum: [2] [3]. To extemp: [4]. Oratory: [5]. Dramatic Interp: [6]. Humourous interp: [7]. Duo Interp: [8] [9]. Now I will start searches of periodicals. --Ybbor^Talk 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I commend you on your search for 'sources', I must point out that not one of those sources is truly independent of the subject. As how-to guides, instruction manuals and strategy texts, they might be useful to reference the sections on format and rules that currently exist. However, see below for an explanation of why the prevalence of those sections contradicts WP:NOT. None of the books you have provided is evidence for the notability of the debate forms. A scholarly analysis of the impact of each individual form on american culture (not simply about the impact of the NFL) would be evidence for notability. I challenge you to find one. Happy‑melon 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Do Not Merge - Sigh, more tyrannical deletion binges. Tens of thousands of high school students compete in these events each year marked for deletion, up to and over 10 weekends a debate season. The fact that innumerable independent research firms have been instituted to cater to the debate events shows their notability. As for the demand to satisfy the non-original research requirement, simple citations from The Rostrum or the NFL's website can satisfy the research issue. Put simply, if these are going to be deleted on original research and notability grounds, then the limitless articles on pokemon species and characters in the Lord of the Rings that were mentioned only once must be immediately deleted. Auror 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Incidentally, if not for the fact that I would get lynched, I would also list for deletion the articles you describe, per WP:BEANS. The facts you have elucidated might be true - if they are reliably sourced, but they only demonstrate the importance of the topics. In fact, they only indicate the importance of the NFL itself. Even so, none of the facts you have put forward actually advance a claim of notability. In order to be an encylopaedic coverage of the topic (of a particular style of debating), the articles should not contain information such as detailed rules (WP:NOT#TEXT, WP:NOT#INFO), past winners (WP:NOT#INFO) or even techniques (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Remove all this and what is left? I have assumed that the Lincoln-Douglas debate is named after two famous people for some reason - the history of the form and the name assigned to it probably is notable. Hence I have excluded it from this listing. Remove all the things that wikipedia is not from the remainign articles, however, and there is nothing left. Happy‑melon 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each of these are legitimate and notable forms of debate in their own right and deserve their own articles. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. :D Happy‑melon 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. With sources, any WP:OR could be removed from the articles, leaving only what is verifiable. I have to believe that there's a textbook or something out there that could serve as a reasonably independent source. If the level of verifiable information is low, I would support a merge to Forms of Debate or NFL Forms of Debate or some similar article. As for notability, the National Forensic League is notable primarily because of its activities in the area of student debate. Such activities consist almost entirely of the activities described in these articles. I acknowledge that notability is not inherited - but, if the NFL is notable for these activities, don't these activities retain some notability as a result? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Textbooks are certainly available which can serve as a reliable source for sections entitled, for instance, "rules", "past winners", "judging", etc. Unfortunately, various sections of WP:NOT show that the articles cannot be constituted of, or even based around, such sections. Reliably-sourced sections entitled, for instance, "history", "cultural impact", etc, must instead form the bulk of these articles; with one exception, there is no evidence that reliable sources, or even the necessary content, is available. Remember the distinction between the cultural impact/history of the NFL (which is undisputedly notable) and the cultural impact/history of a specific debate form; a reliable source for notability must focus specifically on the latter. Happy‑melon 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. While the parent article National Forensic League is notable, these articles on the individual forms of debate are not. The absence of reliable sources is striking. I observe that Poetry Interpretation is on this list, but note that it was converted into a redirect to Poetry reading in February 2005. I have no objection to deleting that redirect, because the old article that is under the redirect seems to be properly considered in this batch, and the redirect doesn't even seem correct. The target article Poetry reading should of course not be deleted. EdJohnston 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the AfD tag from Poetry reading and placed it on the Poetry Interpretation redirect. I acknowledge that such a deletion would normally be covered at redirects for deletion, but it seems most appropriate to keep the nominations together. The main article on Poetry reading should not, of course, be deleted. Happy‑melon 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]