Draft talk:European Universities Debating Championships

Rating

I downgraded the article because it lacks any in-line citations. Although the prose seems alright. Scarian^Talk 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grand Finalist & ESL Champion Team Members

This discussion is moot as most of it was conducted between Codf1977 on the one hand and with the socks of Singopo on the other:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The reason for removing the list was firstly it is totally un-sourced - which is reason in it's self to remove, however it is also looks like Fancruft and a WP:LAUNDRY list. Given that most of the information is repeated in the table of winners it adds very little extra value - If you can provide a WP:RS for the information then I think it can be re-added in a easy to read table form. Codf1977 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this is fancruft as it's not random trivia. It's a detailed list of the finalists and ESL champions of the competition, which is key information about a debating tournament. Without it, the only information the page gives is the winning and host institutions and the best speakers, and I think many readers will be interested will be interested in slightly more deatil than that. It's not going to ridiculous levels (such as listing every quarter-finalist or top-50 speaker), just those who made the main final or won the ESL competition, and I think that's reasonable. I agree that sourcing is a problem. I've tried my best to rectify this, but agree this still needs work. From 1999-2006, the information can be found through this page from the old World Debate Website which was started in the 1990s and was not originally a blog. It appears that after the 2006 competion, Colm Flynn, who founded the website, decided that because the newly added blog section of his website was growing in popularity and because sites like Wikipedia were recording these results, he no longer needed to keep adding to the old non-blog website. The catch-22 of this was that non-blog/wiki referencing on Wikipedia then became more difficult. I've tried my best to source this fairly quickly, and maybe others can help me source it better. Results before 2007 are now all referenced to non-blog pages, but work is needed on more recent referencing. Still, I don't think that's reason to delete this section because at least most of it can be referenced to non-blog pages, and I'm sure with a bit of work better references can be found for the more recent results. Singopo (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is now better referenced, not sure that it is a WP:RS but that I think is a matter best refereed to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It is, still however untidy and hard to extract information from a WP:LAUNDRY list and one that might not respect WP:NLIST so some work needs to be done on layout. I still belive the information is of little or no interest to anyone and has no place in an Encyclopaedia - it is best left to the website of the event or organisation. Codf1977 (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you think the finalists and ESL champions of a debating tournament have no place in an encylopaedia article about that debating tournament. I agree that not every detail of an event is of encyclopaedic value, but these are key details of the history of this event. I would agree with you that it would probably look better if this information could be put into some form of table rather than the current list format, however. Singopo (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Have updated the tab with the finalists. Codf1977 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only details not listed in the table are the list of the team members - none of which as I can see are notable and - since it is a TEAM event I have removed them as per WP:NLIST. If ANY are notable then you are free to add them back. Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an event where teams are made up of 2 people (not huge numbers of people as in some competitions). Just as it's quite right that both members of doubles tennis teams who reach the final of an event are listed on the pages about those events, I think it's just as appropriate here. I see nothing at WP:NLIST (which sets different standards for stand-alone list pages and lists within articles) that says that lists of people who've made significant achievements within an event should not be listed within an article about that event, as long as it doesn't go overboard (and I don't think this does). Without this, the article would list the best individual speakers at the event, but not the individuals who made the main final or won the ESL title, which are just as significant achievements, and that makes no sense. All these individuals are notable within the context of the article. I agree that this information could be better formatted than it currently is (probably within the table above). But that's a reason for more formatting work on the page, not for removing the info which, as far as I can see, does not violate any Wikipedia policy because it's information of significance within the context of this article. Singopo (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry don't know what happened to my last edit must not have saved it

The list of names is a way to get round the consensus that debaters are not not notable see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters - Would be more than happy for a list of Notable participants in the champs - such a list could be drawn from everyone who has ever been - that would seem a better list. Codf1977 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters, you'll see that I was one of the people who took part in that AfD and that I was in favour of its deletion. That page was a stand-alone list. In the AfD, me and several others argued that it was wrong for Wikipedia to have that information on a stand-alone list page. One of the reasons I gave (and at least one other contributor specifically agreed with me) was that the pages about the debating tournaments were better pages for this type of info than a huge centralised list. So you can't claim that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters marks a precedent which supports your contention that lists of debaters are not even notable enough for the pages on the tournaments they achieved success in, because it doesn't. The existence of pages about the tournaments as places where this information could go was, in fact, a reason cited by more than one contributor in favour of that deletion. Both that AfD and WP:NLIST do not support your claim that this information should be removed. Unless you can give a much better reason, this information should be restored. Singopo (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

in its basic form it is a list of non-notable names - not very well sourced - who attended an event of questionable notability - your argument seems to be - they attended, a few won - most did not so lets add them.

What about a compromise - add the names of the winners to the table - both main and ESL if you want. Codf1977 (talk)

I'll stand by my judgement that the main tournament finalists and the ESL winners are notable enough, in the context of the topic, to be listed on this page. Those were the exact same individuals who were previoulsy listed on the 'List of debaters' page, and a key reason why I thought it was appropriate to delete that page was because I thought this page and pages about other similar tournaments were the right places for them to be listed, not because I thought they had no notability at all and should be removed from Wikipedia althogether. Making the final of the European continent's biggest debating tournament or winning one of its lesser prizes (ESL / best speaker) is an achievement which should be notable enough in the context of the page about the event itself. WP:NLIST says that information listed should be info that could reasonably also go into the text of the article, and if there was a short write-up on each year's tournament (as appears in some other debating tournament articles) the names of these individuals is precisely the sort of info which could reasonably be put in that text. I'm not suggesting going further, such as listing the semi-finalists or those who were ranked the no. 2 speaker. I think the main final and the winners of the 2 other prizes are a reasonable cut-off point, and I therefore see no reason why this info should be removed from the article. Singopo (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree, with the listing of the non-winners, it would be the thin edge. For example someone who came 4th in the speaker may well say if the team member who came 4th is listed why not me - if you limit it to winners there is no room for anyone to be put out. Codf1977 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

you point about the names in prose is valid, however it is more likely to be put in context - ".. In the final Mike Smith, from Big City Uni, made a ........" - the problem with the "review" of event is finding WP:RS of information in which to write one without it being WP:OR or lifted from someone else's website since there is next to no coverage in any WP:RS about the event. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

if as to highlight the issue about reviews - as I was typing - the reviews of the worlds pre-2006 have just been 'blanked' for that issue.Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

On the World Universities Debating Championship page in its current state (both in its tables and its text), the names of the all the main tournament finalists are listed, and that's not been an issue of controversy as far as I'm aware. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that those who made the final round of the event's central competition should be listed, as should the winners of the side competitions. I think that's a very reasonable standard to maintain. Singopo (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I know they are listed there, but they are not par tournaments - coming 4th in the worlds is in some ways as notable than winning your continental tournament since there are 5 continental tournament winners each year. Beter examples would be John Smith Memorial Mace (winners only) or Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships (winners and 2nd place - no members names) or All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships (again - winners and 2nd place - no members names) Codf1977 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Counter-example: The names of winners and runners-up are included in the Asian Universities Debating Championship article. They also were included in the North American Debating Championship until a few days ago when you removed them (and your rationale there was because of copyright issues, not notability). And the John Smith Memorial Mace page actually lists all the finalists from recent years (the winners in the top chart, and the runners-up in the lower charts which list the winners of each of the qualifying tournaments which decide the 4 finalists). And I think the reason this info is missing from some of the other articles you've mentioned is because no-one's been able to find the detailed historical information rather than because no-one wants it to be in there. We could go on trading examples like this, but it would be a bit pointless. There's no definitive criteria we can point to within Wikipedia's notability policies here. Given that there's no clear-cut policy reason to remove it, I think it's reasonable to say that information that's been in the article for quite some time should remain unless there is a wider consensus to remove it. Singopo (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree on this - the losers of a questionably notable inter-university competition are not notable to be included in an article about the competition. But, since you seem un-willing to accept my compromise on this point, and there is no point us throwing point counter point for ever - if you want to add the names (both winners and losers of the main event), let's stick to the sprit of WP:NLIST and add then into the main table - I will not remove them unless someone else questions the notability, someone questions the source or it goes beyond the main event. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A list of non-notable team members is not in line with WP:NLIST. I have removed the second table - am happy for you to go back to the joint table. Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're just being obstructionist now. There's nothing in WP:NLIST which suggests that information that's acceptable if it's all in one big table becomes unacceptable if it's split into 2 smaller tables for formatting purposes to make it easier for the reader to pick out the info. (If you want to have a discussion about which formatting works best, that's fine. But don't just delete content because you don't like the formatting. Personally I think what I've done works best because it allows readers who are interested in seeing a list of institutional champions and hosts to do easily in a compact chart, while still allowing those who want to see more detailed information to do so without making the institutional overview more difficult to read.) And on relection I can see nothing wrong with including the pre-1999 info which is sourced just because you suspect the info might be unrealiable because the source doesn't contain every last piece of info. Singopo (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No I am not being obstructionist - My whole point all along has been I don't think the the losers (cos that is what they are) are notable - the only reason you need to split the table in two is you wish to include the non-notable names of 6 losers - a table is another form of list and it is relevant :

“ For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. ”

The second table you have added is a vehicle to include the names of non-notable participants or alumni. I have amended your first table to show how easily a table of just the winners works.

I do think it is valid to question the reliability of the pre 1999 data as The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material and given the incomplete nature of the information from Colm's website and with no indication where it came from (as I doubt he was in attendance) I am justified in both questioning it and removing it. I am happy for it to be reintroduced when we can be sure that it is correct - this is after all an encyclopaedia and we have to be sure it is correct. Codf1977 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Having agreed on a course of action, you now seem to be using excuses about the formatting to go back on what was agreed. I had not added a random list (unlike your example about lists of school alumi which do indeed often have no clear criteria). I created a table with very specific criteria. And your argument that content can somehow be acceptable if it's all in one table but not if it's in 2 tables makes no sense and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Discussing how best to format information is fine, but removing information on the basis that splitting it into 2 tables somehow makes it illegitmate makes no sense. The format into which I had put it invited the adding of future years' results in the specific categories of the table – nothing more and nothing less. It didn't invite the adding of more information than the previous single table, just changed the formatting a bit. If someone were to try to add information that went beyond the main finalists and winners of the other secondary categories, I would be the first one to try and remove that from the page (unless someone else got there before me). As I've pointed out already, most Wikipedia pages about doubles tennis tournaments contain the names of the winners and the losing finalists, and there's no reason why this page should be different. You haven't given a good reason for removing this content from the page beyond the fact that you for some reason don't like it. And you've also given no good reason why the pre-1999 information on the World Debate Website is somehow less reliable than the other information. The fact that some of it is missing doesn't mean that Colm Flynn would have happily published the details that he did without being sure they came from a reliable source and were accuarate. There's nothing to suggest that he's not been as thorough about checking the pre-1999 information as he was for any other details on the site. The fact that only some details could be verified does not mean that there's reason to suspect that those details that have been included are inaccuarte. Singopo (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No I was happy with them all in one table as in this version - you will see that I was happy with everything in as a main table if you read back in this thread. It does make a difference if you split the table in two for reasons of formatting or layout you then need to be re-ask the question of should they be there in the fist place is the information still relevant for the article. I an not sure the names should be there at all (except best speaker) as this is a team event, I have conceded the the point as as a way of reaching a compromise - since none of the team members are notable (out side debating) I don't see why they should be included. Your likening this to tennis might be valid if the WP page on The European University Tennis championship listed anyone or for that matter exited.

As for the pre-1999 data you have made my point for me - the information is un-cited - we don't know ware it came from and the test for WP is verifiability not truth and since Colm almost certainly has relied on someone else for that information with out a proper cite it should not be included. Codf1977 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Singopo, I voted to delete the List of Debaters page with the expectation that the information there (finalists and best speakers at Worlds/Australs/Euros/North Americans) could be placed on the tournament pages. I think that information should be here, and I don't follow the logic of what Codf1977's saying about there being a problem with having 2 tables. (I don't have a very strong prefernce between 1 table and 2, but I do think the 2 tables look a bit nicer and a easier to read.) As for the World Debating Website, none of its pages specifically state how the information was gathered (I think most websites cited on Wikipedia don't have their own internal citations), but I don't see why one page of the site should be less citable than the others. Purple Watermelon (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, we need to get the content of the page right. And for reasons I've stated mutiple times, I think this content should be on the page. The formatting is then an important yet secondary consideration. I really don't understand why Codf1977 thinks that splitting it into 2 tables means that the question of the information's relevance need to be re-asked just because it's split into 2 tables. Surely the question of relevance is an entirely separate questions from that of the number of tables. The number of tables is a purely formatting issue, and for reasons I've outlined above I think there are good reasons to split them. I also think that the pre-1999 info on Colm's website is a reasonable source – the fact that some details are missing surely means that he's only put in facts he can be sure of and left out deatils he can't reliably confirm. The general accuracy of the rest of the site is indicative of that fact that Colm was careful with what he put in. Singopo (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this clear - I only think the winners should be listed - simple - not the losers. The only reason why I agreed to allow the losers (I still think they should not be there) was in an effort to reach a compromise. If you had left the page at this point - I would have left it at that - not happy but accepting of the compromise. The only reason you need two tables is because of the wish to list the non notable losers - it is not needed if you use this version. As for the pre 1999 data if there is a need to state "the information is incomplete and the source of this information is not stated" as with this version then the information clearly fails the verifiability test and should be removed - which I have done. Codf1977 (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We don't need 2 tables. The reason I turned it into 2 tables was purely for ease of reading. If you can give a good reason why you think it should be formatted differently, then please do so. But it's a separate issue from the information. You've made it clear that you don't like the runner-up teams being listed on the page, but many well-developed Wikipedia articles on competitions give details of both the winners and runners-up. Your personal preference isn't a reason for removing the content. If you can give a good reason for changing the formatting, please explain. But let's not get these 2 separate issues mixed up.

2. The fact that some information has not been included on what is accepted to be a generally reliable website does not mean that what has been included cannot be accepted to be verified by that site. (The exclusion of some information if anything shows caution in only puuting in what the author is confident is correct.) The clarification that Singopo put in the text is useful, however, in as far as it explains the reason for the missing information, though I'm not 100% sure it's necessary as long as the citation is there for readers to check out themselves. On the face of it, there's no reason not to trust this source. Singopo (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but i smell sock - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singopo Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Past championships

I have not been able to find any WP:RS on the pre 1999 stuff so I have removed the section, if anyone else can please fell free to add it back.

I am still not happy with the refs used in this section, as they are all primary and I am not sure they meet WP:RS - again if someone knows of any better please add/change/replace.Codf1977 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Members of non-winning teams

I have removed the members of non-winning teams as I believe they are not notable even within debating and the inclusion is cronta to WP:NLIST. I have also created a Notable participants section for listing of anyone who participated in the event who meets the WP:N test and for which a WP:RS can show they attended. Codf1977 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"I have removed the members of non-winning teams as I believe they are not notable even within debating" - On what grounds do you believe this? Being a finalist at Worlds or at Euros is esteemed a considerable achievement, as you can confirm to your own satisfaction if you watch the preamble of the Euros final on youtube, wherein as you may notice judges are introduced with reference to their achievements including breaks to the final at major competitions. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.26.18 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not for me to prove they are not - it is up to others to prove that they are by the use of WP:RS to show that they meet WP:N - if you can show that then fell free to add them back - as I have been unable to find much WP:RS coverage of anything debate related - since even the Euros does not have it's own website to list them on - not even sure they think they are notable. Codf1977 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were able to convince the British Debate website ( http://www.britishdebate.com ) to update their listing to include the pertinent information (teams that broke to Euros), would that, in your view, satisfy reliability requirements? Euros does not have it's own website because the tradition has been for a new website to be created for each competition. You can find the present one here; http://www.amsterdameudc.org/ 82.31.18.191 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will. Have a read of the WP:N and WP:RS, the problem as I see it is that this is a student event and as such does not get much coverage out side the closed community of debaters such as http://www.britishdebate.com or http://www.debating.net which are not likely to meet the test of WP:RS as there does not appear to be any from of editorial oversight. What is needed is evidence to show that the finalists of these competitions are of any note or importance, to show this articles and publications published by bodies independent of debating would be needed. Codf1977 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the Britishdebate site wouldn't meet the criteria; it's an official website of the English Speaking Union, which has been a registered charity since 1918. If the ESU is regarded as a reliable source for the article on the ESU, why is it not a reliable source when it comes to debating results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.18.191 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A source can easily be a WP:RS for one thing and not another. However I think you are missing the overall point - they may be a source for the results but how does that show notability of the losers ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the website - even though there may be a tradition of a new website to be created for each competition - would not stop the organising committee setting up an overall one for all things Euro - the fact they have not lends credence to the argument that they are not very notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnny's Name

Much as I respect Codf's right to conduct a totally baffling one man war against debates information being posted on wikipedia I really am flabbergasted by the insistence that Jonathan Leader Maynard's name not be listed correctly. You have no source for his name being 'Jonathan Maynard' as to the best of my knowledge he never goes by that, but only ever by the double-barreled 'Leader Maynard'. If resources such as Facebook, the Youtube video of the final, the published tabs of any competition he's taken part in or his mother's wikipedia page (Carol Leader) are not acceptable sources for Codf's interpretation of RS policy... what source do you have for 'Jonathan Maynard' being his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.127.55 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, you are correct no source exists for any of it - my undo of your edits is related to the fact that you did not provide any source - I will remove the whole line if no sources are given. Codf1977 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

None were forthcoming so have removed the line. Codf1977 (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

eudc.wikidot.com could be a circular reference

The EUDC Hall of fame page was created on 10 Aug 2009 and you will see that the 2009 results were already on this page then - it is not clear if the EUDC Hall of fame used this page as it's source so as to remove the risk of circular references another source is needed. Codf1977 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That site is maintained and edited by the Council that governs this competition, the liklihood that they took the information for a tournament they had just attended from wikipedia is very slim indeed, and is a, quite frankly, bizarre suggestion. I don't understand how you can doubt the accuracy of those results given the myriad places that they are reported that a brief google search will show you. Yes, they are blogs but given that you're talking about not for profit organisations it's hardly surprising they use blogs to communicate information in a quick, free, and easy way. Votes4t3 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have posted to WP:RS/N regarding the sources for this article. Codf1977 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Stubify

Given that at both Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#www.debating.net and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#European Universities Debating Championship and it's sources. no editor feels that the sources are reliable, I propose to convert this article into a stub removing anything that is unsourced or contentious. Codf1977 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Given no more comments here or at the other place I am going to make this into a stub. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets go through this, your claim "no editor feels the source is reliable is a flat out lie in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#European Universities Debating Championship and it's sources., an editor, yes, one who used a sock puppet, felt it was reliable, and on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#www.debating.net, only one other editor has commented. I have the following to say. There are RS out there, and at least in 2010, the current amsterdam eudc website referred to above is an RS for the winner and runners up, check the text of WP:RS, it says " When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves", note it does not say must not be relied on, it just prefers secondary sources, and says you must not interpret primary sources, clearly not the case here. I will start to return what you have removed as I find RS similar to this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0105/1230936655083.html

Once I have done this for several championships, I hope you will allow the list to be restored in good faith and reliable sources to be added as and when.

If you want to have notability criteria debated, I can pull a BBC programme which calls debating the largest non-sporting extracurricular activity in schools and universities, if that is the case, what makes, say World Chess Championship 2010 appropriate for wikipedia but this article not. The only argument against that in terms of notability (but not RS) is if you have something against debating.

I currently do not have access to the necessary materials but will update as soon as I am able178.98.225.63 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The www.irishtimes.com is indeed a reliable source, and I am happy to see anything added if it is backed up by such independent reliable sources. the notability of debating as a whole is not in question, but without independent reliable sources to back this article up it does raise the question is the European Universities Debating Championship notable outside the world of university debating clubs ? As for discounting the views of a Sock master, if someone is willing to cheat in such away as to !vote keep multiple times on AfD's then he is not to be trusted with regard to anything about debating. Codf1977 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However does the number of debating unions across the world such as the Aberystwyth, Auckland, Cambridge, UCC Philosoph, Durham, Oxford, St Andrews, Sydney, TCD-Hist, TCD-Phil, Western Ontario, Yale and the number of non-university affiliated organizations set up such as the APDA, the CUSID, the English-Speaking Union and the NPDA (all to name but a few) not suggest that there is a large community out there for whom this information could be of interest and use? And considering this is such a large community but which does not receive much outside coverage, does this not make the use of primary sources legitimate? Mitsuko045 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of these kinds of articles get deleted because of the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources: see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Association of Debaters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Debating Union, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UBC Debating Society and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus debating society. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the lack of secondary sources is the reason for a lot of debating articles to be removed *however* in this case, as the primary sources are being used to relate facts as opposed to interpretations, as set out in wikipedia NOR policy, primary sources are legitimate the use for stating facts like venues of competitions, winners, etc etc. Mitsuko045 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Universities Debating Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123145025/http://www.amsterdameudc.org/ to http://www.amsterdameudc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European Universities Debating Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229062116/http://www.eudc2012.org/previoushosts.htm to http://www.eudc2012.org/previoushosts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718142552/http://www.yorkdebating.com/?p=216 to http://www.yorkdebating.com/?p=216
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219082818/http://www.galwayeudc2011.ie/ to http://www.galwayeudc2011.ie/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229044306/http://www.eudc2012.org/ to http://www.eudc2012.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826113722/http://www.warsaweudc2016.com/ to http://www.warsaweudc2016.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)