Talk:Australian Capital Territory Debating Union

I have cleaned the article up enough I hope, am removing the tag

I have additionally removed the copy page, because as it has been created by the people who wrote that content, it cannot be copyrighted

RE: 2008 team

The team having just been selected, I have re-added it. Please refrain from deleting it again.

Article issues

• Peacocking, e.g. :"Mike Douse came to Canberra in 1970, served as president of the ACTDU for several years until he moved overseas in 1977, and by a mixture of enormous energy and a magnetic personality,...
• No reliable sources, all references are to the organization's own website
• No see no claim of notability

Pete.Hurd 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I will fix the peacocking and such, as for notability, there are 8 sub links to the ADF page, including the DAV, if they are notable, this is, if not, well fair enough... anyway, I'll fix the rest shortly.JJJ999 05:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • With all due respect to you Pete, I have fixed the other issues in part with more references, and will continue to do this, but I don't think the notability issue can be resolved by notification here. The body organises a quite large series of debating competitions, involving a large number of schools, and members from the ACT teams are noted for competing in National school comps, which have ceremonies attended by Australian ministers and the like (I have added one footnote for this so far), so while I would oppose a page for any individual involved, the organisation seems notable enough, and I don't see how further proof can really be offered here.JJJ999 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources..." I don't see much in the way of reliable sources, and nothing approaching significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. So I'm restoring the template, minus the peacocking. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. I have changed this article to use {{Primarysources}}. Thanks--BirgitteSB 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Honest Discussion attempt- I have since added a whole host of footnotes, with more coming. Now, I want to run over slowly what these footnotes do, and then explain why I feel I am justified in removing the notability and referencing tags. You may put them back, and in the long term you may need to resolve this via an AfD debate, but in the meantime I will go over this.
    • 1) The article has more non-ACTDU footnotes, including the Australian Deptartment of Immigration, the South Australian Government, non-Australian bodies, and independent schools. So I just don't see how you can claim it claims reliable primary sources. I mean, just what do you doubt the verifiability of? What would I need for a primary source? A scan of the PM attending one of their debates? I think you know full well the body and its accomplishments are real, so I feel this should certainly be dropped.
    • 2) In terms of notability, I feel the footnotes justify this claim. I can see pages for bodies like the DAV (which is effectively the same body, but in Victoria), the OakTree foundation, and innumerable non-for-profit organisations of this scope. The footnotes show events it is involved in have had Ministers attend, have represented the State in debating (before going on to represent Australia), have had a number of notable young people involved, like runner up young Australian on the year Julia Fetherstone, comedian Matthew Keneally and Chris Erskine, who apparently Wikipedia deems worthy of his own page. The body has thousands of students attend its competitions each year, and those schools pay to attend. It often has ministers or representatives from local bodies attend the functions. The yearly CP finals are held in the Legislative Assembly, which is the parliament for the ACT, and sponsored by local ministers and the Australian Federal Police. The body is at least as notable as bodies like rostrum or Toastmasters, and this seems borne out by the attendance of prominent figures, and the selection of the state debating team. In short, I don't understand what more you expect for notability. Please explain it to me.JJJ999 05:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'd also ask you to stop adding those tags until consensus is reached here. It seems to me strange that a HS, which is of similar size and scope in its activities, could be automatically notable, yet this would not...JJJ999 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What I expect to see to demonstrate notability is (per WP:N) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." with "Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...", so, significant coverage in secondary sources, where those secondary sources have as their central subject the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union, and the sources meet that standards set by WP:RS.Pete.Hurd 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Right now there are 3837 "references"

1. www.hotfrog.com.au, a "create your won free business listing service" which is not a reliable source, merely lists a business address, and says nothing about notability
2. http://lernen.bildung.hessen.de/bilingual/Englisch/cur/meth/deb (I fixed the broken and duplicated link) which is a german link-listing service, which says nothing about notability, and isn't reliable.
3. http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Education/Teachers/Facilitating+A+Parliamentary+Debate/FoundationLearning.htm which is a South Australian Parliament web site for schools, and merely lists a link to the www.actdu.org.au site as another website providing "general information on debating skills and techniques", which makes neither the website nor the parenr organization notable.
4. http://www.radford.com.au/cocurricular/oratory.html, a Radford College site which simply states that the college debating teams schedule is published in a draft calendar on the ACT Debating Union website, which makes neither the website nor the parenr organization notable.
5. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:llc3IN9-iiMJ:canberrac.act.edu.au/aug05.pdf+%22ACT+debating+team%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au, which is a roundabout link to http://canberrac.act.edu.au/aug05.pdf, the Aug 2005 issue of the Canberra College newsletter, where on page 10 a single sentence -and not the most prominent item in the paragaph on debating- mentions that "Daniel Higginbottom has also been selected as the captain of the ACT Debating team", trivial mention in trivial source, not amounting to notability.
6. http://www.lynehamhs.act.edu.au/school_policies/competitionsdebating, Lyneham High School website page attesting that "the school takes part in the ACT Debating Union competitions"
7. http://www.cgs.act.edu.au/debating.html Canberra grammar school web site page on debating: "The school participates in the ACT Debating Union's competitions."
8. http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm Trinity college website page listing links to the ACT, as well as Western Australian Debating League, Australian Debating Federation (the peak body for schools debating in Australia), Australasian Intervarsity Debating Association, Queensland Debating Union, Macquarie University Debating Society, South Australia Debating, Debaters Association of Victoria, Tasmanian Debating Union, and a slough of international debating associations. I don't see links on this page amouting to encyclopedic notability.

references 9-33 are from the ACTDU's own website, and don't qualify as reliable sources, and don't demonstrate notability.
34 http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2003/r03034a.htm former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Philip Ruddock, "today congratulated Canberra students on being selected to represent the Australian Capital Territory at the National School Debating Finals" a 2003 press release of congratulations in which the ACTDU gets trivial mention in paragraph 6.
35 http://www.australianoftheyear.gov.au/pages/bio.asp?pID=4 Australian of the year website article on Australian Capital Territory Young Australian of the Year 2004 Finalist, a page in which the ACTDU is not even mentioned.
36 http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Matt+Keneally%22+comedy&meta= a google search on "Matt Keneally" comedy... I don't understand what this is supposed to show.
37 http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2004/v04116.htm former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs press release from 2004 "ACT Student Named Captain of the Australian Schools Debating Team" in which the ACTDU is not mentioned.
In summary none of these are anything like secondary sources, and I don't see how any attest to encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply- well, we can ask other people, but I'd compare it to a school in terms of notability, and all schools are automatically notable. Is it notable? Notable enough to have the attendance of Ministers and to be mentioned in govt press releases. That is a good indication there. How is it less notable than the Oak Tree foundation? Or similar youth bodies? You just keep listing the citations and saying the same thing over and over in what I'm personally finding to be a robotic way, it's not helpful to the discussion. We can ask other people in if you like for their views, but noting the sources you don't like speaks nothing to the general notability. I'll go add a few more sources while I'm at it. There, I just added one citing the ACT team on ABC news. Look, you obviously disagree with me, but that's two people who differ. Hardly cause to remove it. Obviously judging from other people having worked on this, and even more still on pages like DAV, quite a few people disagree with you. The NYSF has its own page, and I see no real references or citation there, yet it is a body of like scope and note. You seem to have some grudge against this body, but as I say it is not against the grain of usual non-profit wiki entries...JJJ999 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have re-tagged the article for notability as I don't see how it meets WP:CLUB - there does not appear to be substantial verifiable evidence of coverage the ABC link in not about the ACTDU and is not substantial. Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting text

I have (twice now) removed the following text that JJJ999 added to this article:

“While Chris Erskine had been elected ACTDU president for some years, it is worth noting these meetings were very poorly attended. The minutes from 1998 for example show a mere 10 people present at the AGM.”

This text had a reference attached to it ([1]), but I have deleted it because the reference only showed that 10 people attended one particular meeting in 1998. It does not support the general blanket statement that “While Chris Erskine had been elected ACTDU president for some years, it is worth noting these meetings were very poorly attended”.

Purple Watermelon 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also fail to see the relevance of that statement to this article, and clearly that text wasn't written from a NPOV. V-train 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

then the statement shall be rephrased accordingly, to note that for that particular year, and any others I can find online minutes for, there was no real attendance.JJJ999 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For this info to be shown to be in any way relevant, it would need to be verified that (a) low attendance was commonplace not occassional during that period, and (b) this commonplace low attendance was different from all other periods in the organisation's history. It would also have to be written in an NPOV tone, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions from that info rather than trying to impose an opinion through the tone of the wording of the text. Purple Watermelon 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Further reasons for deleting text

JJJ999 has now added in the text:

“Some teachers in 2001 complained of difficulty contacting Erskine while he was in charge of the Ford competition. The Minutes from that AGM noted “there was a question expressing concern about Chris Erskine’s availability and difficulties contacting him”.”

I have deleted this because it’s simply not a notable enough piece of information to be relevant to an article on the general activity and history of the ACTDU organisation. (It’s about as relevant in this context as info on whether or not coffee and biscuits were served at that meeting.) JJJ999 has made it very clear that he has a negative personal view of Christopher Erskine, but that doesn’t justify adding in random pieces of negative information about him that aren’t relevant to an encyclopedia article. Purple Watermelon 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything further than "Because I said so" as far as the relevance and notability of this statement. Not to mention the fact that it is OR, and the source is weak at best. V-train 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

a) Only teachers and committee members were at that meeting.

b) Of those 2 groups only teachers would be complaining about why it was difficult to contact him about a schools comp he was running, which is why Harry (a committee member) promises to take it up with him. At a certain point, logic kicks in and things don't need to be citedword for word. It is relevant how the comp was conducted at the time, and nothing you have said makes it less so.JJJ999 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you still uncapable of posting a reply properly? You have been told multiple times. You seem to conflate logic and assumption. How do you know it wasn't a committee member that was having issues? How do you know it wasn't someone who wasn't actually at the meeting, and wanted it brought up? How do you know it was more than one person? The quote does not back up your assumptions. The statement's placement also implies that it has something to do with his resigning, which there is no evidence of. Also, how is this notable? He is no longer the president, the information means nothing now. It has no relevance and is not notable. V-train 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

a)I am familiar with the committee minutes from that year, and while I do not have a scanner or a copy online, I can assure you it was to do with teachers. At any rate, the merest application of common sense would tell you that since his only job that year was to run a school comp, for which committee members besides the President had no reason to contact him, that the teachers would surely be the ones complaining. The committee meets all year, the teachers only come to the AGM, why would the committee only complain then? Why would Harry agree to talk to him about this if the committee contact for Chris (ie, Harry) had trouble contacting him? So aside from the fact I happen to know that was the problem, simple logic backs it up quite convincingly.

b) The statement implies nothing of the sort. Your reading it that way says more about Erskine frankly, and is a fruedian slip.

c) It is clearly notable to the business of the organisation, which is notable itself. It is unfortunate there is not more info like this, if there was it would be notable too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. One minor note in the minutes 6 years ago has enough notability to be mentioned on this page? That's absurd. You can say it is clearly notable all you want, that doesn't make it so. You also have shown nothing to substantiate your claim that multiple teachers had issues with him. It is clear, however, that you do not have a NPOV as far as Erskine is concerned. Why don't you add to the article that in those same minutes, it says there was no opposition to his reelection to the same position? It's clearly notable, according to you. V-train 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I may well add that, you may feel free to as well. Just because it is relevant, it doesn't suddenly become my job to add it.JJJ999 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One minor comment about an ex-president being hard to contact after leaving office is clearly not notable in this article. And there seems to be clear consensus to delete it, with Purple Watermelon, V-train and me in favour of doing so and only JJJ999 believing it should stay. Dorange 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

joint speaker in crime presention 2006

hey, I'm sorry about the previous comment, my friend got ubber keen and decidd to add it in. You can just ignore it.

Sorry once againSareena101 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I assume I am correct and it was just Daniel then?JJJ999 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Are the lists of past winners, participants, statistical breakdowns, etc relevant to this article?

Are the lists of past winners, participants, statistical breakdowns, etc relevant to this article? Surely this is material that belongs on the webpage of the organisation. When did Wikipedia become a clearinghouse for fluff? 124.168.125.162 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• • In your opinion yes. It's not fluff, and you've provided no argument one way or the other. Also, I'm not sure this should be at the bottom of the page, and I'm going to be moving it.

• Comment. From uninvolved user, coming from RfC. In my view no they are not relevant, there is far too much irrelevant detail confusing the reader. Also, when cleaning up, you could pay attention to the prose and the headings. Have a look at the manual of style and at what you need to create a good article. In my experience, agreeing a list of things to do can really get an article improved quickly. Have a look at some articles on other debating societies such as the Oxford Union. I expect that will show you various ways in which the article could be developed. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh. The Oxford Union page is the same length as this one, it's just a bit neater and tidier in most places. Nobody opposes suggested neatening of the page, but the only contribution from the vandal above has been to blank most of the text. It's unconstructive and malicious, and I won't be engaging with them on such a basis.JJJ999 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The lists are not appropriate. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDIR - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These individuals and achievements are not notable, and even if the individuals go on to achieve notability in their own right, their achievement here remains un-notable. At best, the notable individuals would be included in a trivia section, but such sections are discouraged. Also, the discussion should stay at the bottom of the talk page, as it is the most recent. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not appropriate Even recognizing the stature of debate in Australian education. This is a regional , not a nation competition--and in it only one of their prizes is at the senior level even by their standards-- the Ford in particular would be regarded in the US as a junior high school debating competition, and is barely worth mention. If anything, though, I would keep the league table of schools. And then at a second level of priority possibly the names of the schools only for the Douse trophy--and possibly for the other two. And after that just conceivably the names of the people in the ACT team for the higher level competition: the ones who actually competed, not the incredible self-indulgent listing of Reserves who did not even go to the National. Absolutely not the current committee members except the president, which is material for their own website and does not belong in the article for any school club or school association at a regional level, and probably not a national either. There is a difference between a regional high school level group, & the Oxford Union. Whoever it was who blanked this sort of content did us all a favor by calling attention to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not appropriate - lists of past winners are not appropriate content for an encyclopedic entry, especially since a good portion of some of the tables remain empty. I imagine, though, that even a clean-up of the tables would not make the article any more of less relevant. The article has, rightly in my opinion, been classed a being of 'low' importance but the sheer volume of data (which is what it is; distinct from information) is greater than some high-importance, A-class articles.

The extent of the citations from one source would suggest that there are perhaps some WP:OWN issues that need addressing, too. The history of the article is full of unregistered IP addresses, most of them from Canberra, which have only ever contributed to this article without wider contribution to Wikipedia.

The club has a website; it's members should use this rather than Wikipedia to record club data.

Stalwart111 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

• Most of those anonymous IPs have more edits than you do, and you may draw what inference you will from that.JJJ999 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The Oxford Union page, quoted as an example, does not have an extensive list of prizewinners and minor current officers, just a short list of some notable members who have Wikipedia articles. (I pass over the detail that it is one of the premier universities in the world, and this is a secondary school level group, and is thus hardly comparable,) I have adjusted this accordingly. I do not think I am quite in the class of people referred to above. JJ999, if you disagree please take this to one of the noticeboards. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

some of this was reverted by 121.45.202.214 (, , saying that (Agree on removing some of content, but the past state rep teams are standard on all similar pages, ". Can you give me some examples? If this is going to take an RfC, we should get the community opinion on all of them together. I think we do not do this for any high school sports or activity elsewhere. As a possible compromise, do you think you can find a way to condense the presentation? Is there a good external link for them on the web? DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The DAV, QDU pages for example both list these teams. I think it's pretty condensed now to be honest, though possibly it could be tightened up. I could certainly find some external links for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.202.176 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

and others do not. I think the first step is to check other high school activities--athletics, chess, whatever. I was about to suggest a general compromise: list the place each year, but the team members only when they were the national champions--but I see we already have that, at Australian National Schools Debating Championships. I think I would be willing to try to defend the principle of listing winners of national high school level competitions. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a complaint about one of the names appearing here violating privacy, and as most of the table is unsourced material about living people, I have removed it, several times now. The table should not be re-added without independent sources for every entry. That said, my reading of the discussion above is that the table provides excessive detail, and should not be included. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Excuse me? What complaint? And why hasn't an admin noted it? Much of the table is sourced very well, with serious independent sources, and with more effort the rest could be souced too (not that it necessarily needs to be to there)JJJ999 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The complaint was received via m:OTRS (ticket:2010031510004489). Most of the names listed are not sourced, and as we are now aware that at least one of them is causing problems for that individual, we will not be including the list in it's present form. Rewrite it as DGG suggested above with less content. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I will look into this, and see what other sources are available. I will have time to consider a rewrite on the weekend. In the meantime, recommend removing just the name involved.JJJ999 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would do that, however that brings up a privacy issue. Please revert your replacement of the table while you consider your rewrite. Kevin (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See talk page. Obviously problematic.JJJ999 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

References & Notability

I have been going through the References on this article. I have removed some that are dead, one from the Directory service that only confirms the address (which is better obtained from the org's own site (linked to the External links section)

The ref's now left :

Lyneham High School website which mentions debating wins but not the ACTDU by name.

Canberra Grammar School only in passing saying The school participates in the ACT Debating Union's competitions

www.actdu.org.au is it's self (twice)

Access my library is a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU.

Access my library is a extract from the Canberra Times that again does not mention the ACTDU.

Access my library is a extract from the Canberra Times that again does not mention the ACTDU.

Access my library is a extract from the Canberra Times that again does not mention the ACTDU.

ABC Stateline Home is a ABC radio transcript that again does not mention the ACTDU.

It is for this reason that the article is tagged for notability Codf1977 (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to say "ACTDU" on the page, as long as it references the group and the activity. Likewise, you know perfectly well there are other sources you could easily locate via revision history, that I'll be bringing back when I have time. Notability was challenged here sometime ago, and dropped when sources were found. That's why you don't just add tags on your own, and especially not when you've been getting repeated warnings about edit warring among other things in the last few days. Please, take your anti-debating vendetta elsewhere, perhaps to the dozens of other debating articles you've been trying to deleteJJJ999 (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I Don't think that any of the sources found show the org meets WP:CLUB - it should be tagged Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.actdu.org.au/about.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tell me what you need, and I'll have it sent to you

RFC : Notability tag

I have tried to tag this article with notability however User Talk:121.45.196.175 (who I think is USER:JJJ999 who has forgot to log in) keeps removing it - my question is - is the tag appropriate ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• As above- JJJ999 (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Tag is irrelevent, this article has many more eyes now. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Tag is irrelevant just because of the number of eyes viewing it has gone up. Codf1977 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we see how the next few days go and consider putting the tag back up after some discussion? Why don't you list your concerns with the version of the article I just edited down to remove copy-vio and random links to nothing - permalink. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy to wait as you suggest - as for my conserns (in relation to the Notability tag) - it is simple - I see nothing here or on any search that shows the ACTDU meets WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk)

Requirements of WP:ORG or WP:CLUB

The requirements of WP:ORG are "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Without editing the article to include the sources, yet, could someone who believes this org is notable show significant converage in reliable, independent secondary sources? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, given that it a not-for-profit WP:CLUB may be more appropriate - but either one need's "significant converage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this article for a few days so that the issues can be talked through, rather than edit warred over. I'll unprotect sooner if another resolution comes to light. Kevin (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any of the changed I made to the article recently. It seems the copyvio question is in doubt. This is the diff of the copyvio->current version. [2]. I don't see this as anything more than a cut-down and rephrasing. The underlying text remains mostly unchanged. A rewrite does not just chase phrases, it actually rewrites the info from scratch. Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a complete rewrite, it just covers the same basic material because that's what a frickin History does, covers the basics of the story. Just as no summary of Harry Potter is a rip off because it retells the story.JJJ999 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. First of all, your complete rewrite retains the same paragraph structure as the initial. Why would a rewrite from scratch have the same topics in the same order? Secondly, your complete rewrite takes entire errors from the initial text - using the paranthetical (organised by the NSW Department of Education), while that actually more appropriately a comma-seperated phrase. Why would a complete rewrite do that? It appears pretty obvious that you merely took the text from the website and changed some adjectives. That's what you did, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I rewrote it. You don't understand copyright, which is not the same as plagiarism. If someone makes a map of my DNA, I don't own a copyright to the information, and the map they make of my DNA they have a copyright to. If I draw or write a differently worded explanation of the same thing, that's my map. So even though both of us are saying "A is A", the different way we have written "A is A" each has it's own unique copyright. So no, you don't understand how copyright works, and also neither of you have acted in good faith because you've protected the page (to prevent a reword- which I note isn't necessary), and haven't offered a reword of your own. Very poor form.JJJ999 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact it would appear that it may be you that does not understand copyright, being the only person here having been blocked for a previous violation (see here) and when your block was cut short by Mangojuice (see here) he or she warned you that "Future copyright violations will be met with further blocks".Codf1977 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so your argument is that you didn't violate their copyright, you just plagiarized them? That's not a very strong argument. You also don't understand copyright. Hipocrite (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you're not seriously quoting that as the example of me not understanding copyright... that block was made by an admin who was booted out of wikipedia in a flame of criticism, and the block was rightly ruled without substance. It's absurd you brought it up as your example. Likewise, the comeback of "that's not a very strong argument" is completely ignorant of copyright law, which is not plagiarism. Technically most stuff on wikipedia which summarises is plagiarism, because this isn't a school essay, it's an encyclopaedia... unless you can actually explain the nature of the copyviolation, then the tag is being removed once the protection expires. You can't claim copyvio in the abstract.JJJ999 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Blocking admin (Alkivar) was not "booted out of wikipedia in a flame of criticism", he was however de-sysoped by ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar) for actions that appear unrelated to copyright. I see no evidence the block was "ruled without substance" in fact the full quote from the unblocking admin reads "I'm assuming you see now why these contributions were an issue. Future copyright violations will be met with further blocks" and the comment on the unblock was "has served its purpose" Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence You might want to read it. The guy was kicked out for multiple violations of all sorts, including inappropriate blockings, and after being torched repeatedly, and refusing to defend his actions, he quit wikipedia before the ArbCom could get rid of him. As I note in my evidence against him, his block was completely inappropriate, and wrong, regardless of what the first person to unblock me noted in a 1 line comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.217.12 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• In fact, I'm pretty sure someone else uploaded the exact image he deleted later, so clearly wasn't a copyvio, as I tried to explain to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.217.12 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability

JJJ999, you say at the top of the Federation talk page: "The wide array of independent coverage in notable sources for the ACTDU page simply sinks any argument about not being notable." It would be very helpful to me if you could list below all the sources you believe can be described as "independent coverage in notable sources", keeping in mind the type of significant coverage in independent, verifiable, third party secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself required under Wikipedia's reliable sources and notability guidelines and the verifiability policy. I have looked on Factiva and the Australian New Zealand Reference Center but have not been able to find any sources. I'd be grateful if you could list in the section below all the sources you feel are appropriate under Wikipedia policy and which supports the existence of this article. If significant coverage in sources deemed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines to be "reliable sources" exists, I will support the article's existence as a stand-alone article, otherwise I'll be taking it to AFD. Thanks, Sarah 04:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I note a number of references which support this, including but not exclusive to the following. Bear in mind though, that some of the sources seem to have been deleted in the meantime, for reasons I will explain in each relevant instance. However, that does not negate the coverage, and at the time the article was last challenged the sources were examined as part of arguments about coverage. Additionally, the removal of a source online does not alter the veracity of the source, it just means it's not online anymore. Some of these, though disputed, were clearly in existence because they've been argued about earlier on this page:

01. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1430489.htm - ABC radio covers how the ACT team is doing, and interviews the ACT coaches about one of their debates.

02. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22744864_ITM -this is a Canberra times article, covering an exhibition debate that the ACTDU organised for about the environment.

03. http://www.nma.gov.au/education/talkback_classroom/forums/2006_talkback_classroom/the_chaser_forum/the_chaser_forum_panel_biographies - the link, now dead, covered the involvement of ACT debating in the chaser forum, and the details of the forum (but not the story any longer) can be seen here, referencing ACT debater Laura Birchall- (03a.)http://www.nma.gov.au/media/media_releases_index/satirists_share_trade_secrets_with_students/

04. http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2004/v04116.htm - I know the link is now dead, but that is the fault of the government changing. When Phillip Ruddock was immigration minister there was an article at this source noting their support of the ACT team, and debating in the ACT generally.

05. http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2003/r03034a.htm - as above, this covered the support of the then DIMIA (dept of immigration) of ACT debating. I understand the source is no longer there, but it was covered at the time, which is important to note.

06. http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2003/s931009.htm - one of the ACT team being interviewed by TV program stateline (I think this is an extract of part of the interview)

07. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=343914&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16 -this is the Gulf Times covering the success of ACT debater Laura Birchall

08. http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=February2010&file=Local_News2010021562214.xml -ditto, but a Qatar paper

09. http://moreresults.factiva.com/results/index/index.aspx?ref=CANBTZ0020061008e2a90000p]retrieved on 19 October 2008 - I understand that factiva is either not working, or no longer has these articles, but I assure you hard copies of the Canberra Times feature a story like this one had on the ACT debating team each year after National Schools. I could possibly find the hardcopy via microfilm or something, but I don't have time for that right now, but I can find it with time. Although the Canberra Times is not a local paper (it has national distribution), the local paper "The Chronicle" also features an article each year on both the ACT team, and the winners of the Crime Prevention competitions, and if they put their content online, I would provide it (circulation for the chronicle would be a few hundred thousand I think). In response to this, we often see press releases from schools such as this, covering the event: (10.) http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:eIbCqDP6d9kJ:www.cggs.act.edu.au/pages/images/Media%2520Release%2520Murray%2520Trophy.pdf+%22farrell+perpetual+trophy%22&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiB1aGzqRw4sgN3J7fSwEC7lvXKbydg7c76NURzEzYJFCaZYAiA2_9R--d8Mz09DT7913tGUWAH7RQpPjEcXomjOGxjLtfIAuml7ppfp5pjN_BFbvLtRQbCE5ntKo5fRevGVZd_&sig=AHIEtbTqOOpT0z8QzGUAWpSIQsMpZC-q1Q And with time I am confident we can show more coverage in both the CT's and the Chronicle on the competitions, because I read about it each year.

In the above context, see that national government organisations like the AFP cover this event each year, such as here: (11.) http://www.afp.gov.au/media_releases/act/2003/debaters_word-up_on_crime_prevention.html and here (12.) http://www.afp.gov.au/media_releases/act/2004/debaters_word-up_on_crime_prevention.html and in turn, schools also cover it in their publications, although I've just used a quick google search to find online coverage on a school website: (13.) http://www.canberrahs.act.edu.au/announcements/canberra_high_wins_afp_jcp_debating_competition

A public exhibition debate held at the prestigious CSIRO building run by ACT Debating, noted here:(14.) http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:238_OjH5kp4J:www.pedalpower.org.au/events/docs/skeptics%2520details.pdf+canberra+skeptics+anu+debating&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh8AnfwDy5VnKe6PwgJTSKfB5qFBzsG_7WmozbY1970Og0YAsvcFrar8__miTVec1F1cQLOcSym8vNUbHU0vte6VyPtVR2NHkh0ptM7meGxo-ag7fYJohN9hPDJIK1Pf9F9--6m&sig=AHIEtbR04GFRY1xHIdGVqXlgew2VApHyUQ

15. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18838817_ITM - article covering ACT debate Julia Fetherston, and ditto here http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18939771_ITM and again here http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13344205_ITM

16. http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm - although deleted now, there was coverage of an ACTDU debate event here.

17. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/liberty-belle-chimes-in/808318.aspx?storypage=2 -another article covering debater Laura Birchall, and her involvement with ACT debating this year.

Similar to the Federal change of Govt, the SA change of ministers seems to have killed their mention of ACT debating comps here: 18. http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Education/Teachers/Facilitating+A+Parliamentary+Debate/FoundationLearning.htm%20SA.gov.au but they were covered at the time, and assumedly a hardcopy in the relevant government gazette or records exists.

19 http://www.radford.com.au/cocurricular/oratory.html%20Radford.com.au - dead link for some reason, should be a press release covering ACT competitions.

Some of the sources are gone, but even leaving that aside there is coverage via international publications, national publications, the ABC, the government and large government organisations, and local papers (I will dig up some of the chronicle dates later, though unless someone is willing to get the microfilm they'll have to take it on trust). That is more than enough for a prima facie case of notability, which could easily be built on with other sources added- JJJ999 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been through the above and my comments are :

01. Article more about debating than anything - No Mention of the ACTDU.

02. No Mention of the ACTDU.

03. Link is dead - however if it only "covered the involvement of ACT debating in the chaser forum" does not look like it is "significant coverage"

03a. Firstly it is a press release, secondly No Mention of the ACTDU.

04. Press release

05. Press release

06. No Mention of the ACTDU.

07. No Mention of the ACTDU.

08. No Mention of the ACTDU.

09. Dead link - but Sarah (see above) confirms no ref in factiva for the ACTDU.

10. Press release from a school strongly connected to the ACTDU.

11. Press release from a major sponsor to the ACTDU.

12. Press release from a major sponsor to the ACTDU.

13. Press release from a school strongly connected to the ACTDU.

14. Flyer about a bike ride - looks like the debate part was organised by the ANU Debate society and NOT the ACTDU.

15. All Three - No Mention of the ACTDU.

16. Can't comment as link is dead - looks likely to be a press release from a school

17. No Mention of the ACTDU.

18. Dead link.

19. Dead link.

I see nothing in any of those even approaching coverage of the ACTDU, let alone significant. Codf1977 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are deliberately obtuse, and avoiding much of the explanation I gave above. Also, something does not need to explicitly mention the ACTDU by name, as long as it covers the events and activities they are running. You attempt to void most of the sources by saying they don't use the term "ACTDU" on the page is completely disingenuous. And btw, I was at the Skeptics debate, it was run by ACTDU, they probably just don't know the difference and have labelled it wrongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.217.12 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No I just think that if a source is being used to demonstrate the notability of the ACTDU it should at least mention the ACTDU. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong about that - we need articles containing *significant coverage*, not mere mentions in passing and we don't accept sources that don't name the subject and require us to infer that the source is talking about the union. The first hurdle here is notability - whether the union is notable and we assess that by looking for the existence of significant coverage in secondary, third party, independent, published and verifiable sources. This article is about the union, and sources about individual debaters, various debating events in ACT, and articles that do not even name the union do not help at all. The reason I asked for sources is so we can determine whether the union passes the notability bar for having an article. This is very important because if significant coverage in such sources don't exist, this article can't stay on Wikipedia. The primary issue to resolve is: "is the the ACTDU a notable organisation?" If it is, you need to establish that by presenting independent, third party, published, verifiable secondary sources, such as newspaper, journal articles etc, which demonstrate significant coverage *about the union*; not pages about various school teams, various kids who won, or various events in ACT, etc. Do such sources honestly exist? If so, you need to document them here so we can take a look at them; if they don't exist, we need to move onto deciding whether the article should be deleted or whether it should be redirected to a parent article. If such sources exist, I will fully support Wikipedia having an article about the union, but if the above are the best of the best sources you have, it won't be able to stay as a standalone article. Sarah 05:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

JJJ999: thanks for taking the time to post your sources. I appreciate your effort and I've looked through all the links you posted that still work. Unfortunately, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the sourcing Wikipedia requires to a/ establish notability and justify an article's inclusion and b/ go on to sustain a reasonable article. All the sources you've posted are basically mentions in passing, and some don't even mention the ACTDU at all and requires us to make assumptions, something we cannot do here. The Australian Capital Territory Debating Union is not the subject of these pages, but rather various debates and debaters are the subjects and the union is mentioned only in passing, if at all. The self-published sources - reports from individual schools about their debating teams and press releases are self-published sources and they can only be used on Wikipedia with extreme caution and they don't count for establishing notability. I presume what you have posted above are the best of the best sources you have, so I honestly don't think it's appropriate for the union to have an article here. Under our licensing the article can be reused freely elsewhere if the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is maintained and the source of the article is attributed, so you, or the union, should just post it on their/your website. Are you involved with the union? It's okay if you are - the COI guideline discourages people from editing articles about groups they're associated with but it doesn't forbid it. I'm a board member of Wikimedia Australia and even as the national chapter of a hugely notable foundation like the Wikimedia Foundation which owns one of the most popular and most visited websites in the world, there's no way that Wikimedia Australia would qualify for an article on Wikipedia (and we'd seem to have significantly more mentions in press articles and interviews etc than the ACTDU) for essentially the same reasons I don't believe the ACTU Debating Union does - it just doesn't meet the notability criteria as it has not been the subject of "significant coverage" in reliable, third party, secondary sources, such as newspaper, journal articles etc. Even if the article ends up being deleted, it's not a decision made forever - if in future the union gets significant coverage in appropriate sources, the deletion can be reviewed and it can even be restored. But without *significant* coverage in reliable sources, it's just not going to pass the inclusion criteria. Unless there's any newspaper articles or other "reliable sources" about the union which give significant coverage of it, I think we need to discuss whether the page should be redirected to a parent article with a brief mention there, or whether it should just be deleted. Sarah 05:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favour of a #REDIRECT [[Australian Debating Federation#Australian Capital Territory Debating Union]], this, I think has some advantaged over a AfD in that if the ATCDU ever meets the Notability test I could make creating an article easer. Codf1977 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, and will post a more lengthy reply later. I also would like to know why Codf1977 has not merged the DAV article, despite the lack of objections on the talk and merge page, but is continuing their attempts to merge this article.JJJ999 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have better quality sources than what you posted above and are able to produce significant coverage in appropriate sources, I have to agree with Codf1977 that this should be redirected. Though to be clear, it doesn't need to be redirected to maintain a copy for later as a copy always remains available to administrators and can easily be accessed if the union becomes notable down the track by request to an administrator. I would like you to be part of this, JJJ, but the fact is the article does not conform to Wikipedia policy and it does not meet the inclusion criteria. If you are unable to accept a merge/redirect to a parent article and you are unable to show the union meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, we will have to take this to AFD where it will be outright deleted. At least Codf1977's suggestion allows the union to have a redirect and a small section on a parent article. I really think this is the best outcome you are going to get here. And as I said before, you're welcome to take a copy of the page and use it on your/the unions own site. I don't know what the "DAV article" is, but there being other problematic articles is not a reason to allow non-compliant articles to remain here unaddressed. We can take a look at the DAV article once this is sorted out. Sarah 23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not that I have to explain my actions to anyone, it is however quite simple, I decided to only proceed with the merge on the stub articles while this discussion was on going as they were unlikely to be objected to by anyone and I did not want to be accused of trying to inflame an already heated situation. I left the merge tag on for this article for two reasons, firstly since I was unable to remove the corresponding tag from this article and secondly as it was likely to form part of the discussions here. Once a consensus is reached here about the notability or otherwise of the ACTDU, I and I suspect others, will take that and look to see how that may apply to the remaining other members of the ADF, one option at that time is to re-propose the merge. It is for the same reason (so as not to inflame an already heated situation) that I also chose not to Tag the remaining ones with the article issues tag.Codf1977 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I am sorry I miss spoke I did tag the articles - I do apologise. Codf1977 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

JJJ999, two days ago you said you would be making "a more lengthy reply later" and I certainly welcome hearing whatever you have to say, however, two days have past and we haven't heard anything further from you. As I've said, I would like you to be part of this decision making process, but I'm getting the distinct impression that you're stonewalling us with the intention of blocking any attempt to bring this to a resolution in any way other than the way you want. We do not need 100% agreement to proceed, so it would be better if you would come back and discuss this properly and help to resolve this in a way that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article as it exists cannot stay here and the alternative to a merge is deletion. So you need to produce evidence of significant coverage in appropriate independent third party sources which demonstrate the union's notability, or we will have to proceed with without you. You guys have been fighting over this for weeks now and looking at the history of this talk page, you've been fighting it out with a number of other editors and administrators over the issue of notability and other article issues since 2007. It seems that it's always you on your own fighting against and resisting every other editor or administrator that comes here. You don't WP:OWN this article; it belongs to the community, and the fact that it's always you against everyone else should make you stop and wonder if you're so invested in this article that you can't see what the rest of us see. In one form or another this has dragged out since 2007 and I'm just not willing to allow it to continue unresolved any longer; it needs to be resolved one way or the other very soon. I would like you to be part of deciding what to do with this but if you're not able or willing to do so, we will just have to go ahead without you. Sarah 03:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy, and it's 2 days. At best the above seems to be an argument for renaming the page, since it's clear sources for things that are referenced explicitly (eg "ACT debating team") are covered in the numerous sources above. The only quibble is the term ACTDU. I will post more later, but I actually am quite busy.JJJ999 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Given today's events what is the way forward now that JJJ999 is not able to post more  ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Sarah and Codf1977 - especially noting Codf's detailed breakdown of the sources. Notability guidelines are pretty clear: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". JJJ999's suggestion that there is notability by implication doesn't make any sense - would the same apply to a shopping centre for example? "Oh, there is shopping going on in this local council area, so X shopping centre in that area must be notable, even though none of the sources actually mention it by name other than those directly connected with its managers or sponsors" would go down in flames at an AfD, and I'm sure it would here too. I'm in favour of the redirect option Codf proposed. The ongoing issues with WP:OWN are also troublesome, and there's some indication, if not outright statement, that there may be a WP:COI. Orderinchaos 23:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the page to Australian Debating Federation#Australian Capital Territory Debating Union on the basis of the above comments. So far four people have commented, the three who support redirecting or deleting do so with strong policy-based rationales and the one who opposes does so with an oppositional stance that has no basis in policy. So I think there is a consensus for this page to be redirected. Looking at the relevant section on the Australian Debating Federation page Australian Capital Territory Debating Union and the lack of notability and lack of appropriate sources to justify a full article, I feel that section is more than reasonable coverage for this union and I sincerely do not see how a full article is warranted or justified. I hope JJJ999 will accept this and perhaps work on improving the section on the main page but if he uses his IP to edit anonymously while his account is blocked, he will be blocked indefinitely for block evasion. If JJJ999 wants the article restored, when his block expires, he should come back to this talk page and present a policy-based rationale for the article existing in his preferred form, which would include providing significant coverage in reliable sources, but if returns and edit wars over it, he will be reblocked for edit warring and we will then have to consider either a protected redirect or just taking it to AFD and deleting it. In the section above #Article_issues Pete Hurd - in 2007! - raised notability concerns and took the time to go through each reference explaining the problems with the references and why JJJ999's sourcing is not compliant with Wikipedia policy and here we are three years later with the exact same issues and JJJ999 exerting ownership over the page and still trying to base the article on sources that don't remotely meet policy requirements. People have been raising concerns about this page in regard to notability and sourcing for the last 3 years and enough is enough. I'm unwilling to allow this to drag on any further so we need to ensure that this time it is finally resolved, one way or the other. Sarah 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the dead links

I've just moved down here Codf1977's question, which was directed to JJJ999 posting his list of references in the above section, and my response so it doesn't get lost in the above discussion. I just want to address these dead links and the offline newspaper articles so there's no lingering doubt about the notability of this article subject. If JJJ999 decides to return after his block and address the article issues, I'd welcome his response regarding the quality of the references he presented as sources of coverage of the union which he felt supported his assertion of the union's notability and justified it's inclusion in Wikipedia. Sarah 05:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to Link 18. - can you please provide further details to what was on that page ? - Just to remind you, you said "Similar to the Federal change of Govt, the SA change of ministers seems to have killed their mention of ACT debating comps here....but they were covered at the time, and assumedly a hardcopy in the relevant government gazette or records exists. The reason I ask is that you added that ref to the article with this edit on the 3 October 2007. 3 days later on the 6 October Pete.Hurd posted on this page with this edit a description of the page as it exits now are you saying that in those three days the page changed radically and if so why did you not say so at the time. Codf1977 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

JJJ999 is confused about what was on that page three years ago. That particular page on the SA Government website hasn't been changed since 19 October 2006, and if you look at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, the September 8, 2007, version of the page (September 8, 2007 version) is exactly the same as the current version and exactly the same as the version Pete Hurd quotes from above. It merely says in an external links section: "www.actdu.org.au - for general information on debating skills and techniques". To suggest this attributes notability to the union is absurd - it's barely even a mere mention in passing and it supports notability no more than any website referenced in an external links sections of Wikipedia article is then considered notable. When JJJ999 added the link to the article on the 3 October 2007, all the page had about the ACTDU was the quoted sentence. And that's it.

• Likewise, the Trinity link he refers to above at reference at 16 was merely a list of various online debating resources which includes links to the ACTDU pages, it provides absolutely no coverage of the union, let alone "significant coverage" (July 23, 2008).
• The nma.gov.au link referred to at reference 3 is a page about the Chaser forum members (September 10, 2007). There is a section about Larua Birchall where she mentions her involvement in debating but the union is not mentioned at all.
• Reference 4 is a media release by Amanda Vandstone, titled "ACT Student Named Captain of the Australian Schools Debating Team", the release is about a Canberra Girls Grammar School student, Julia Fetherston, being selected to captain the Australian team at International Schools Debating Competition in Canada in 2005. The union is not mentioned at all. (August 31, 2007)
• Reference 5 is a media release from Phillip Ruddock. It is titled "ACT Students to Attend the DIMIA National School Debating Finals and it's about the Canberra students who were selected to represent the ACT at the National School Debating Finals in 2003. The union is not mentioned at all (August 31, 2007)
• I have been unable to find any page "oratory" existing on the Radford website as referenced at source 19. There's the page co-curricular but that's as close as I can get to JJJ's link www.radford.com.au/cocurricular. However, regardless of what the page says, it's obviously a page self-published by the school about their debating team so I doubt it would add anything useful to this discussion anyway.

I think the Wayback Machine's snapshots of these pages show that the dead links cited above are pretty consistent with the others and do not provide "significant coverage in reliable sources" and don't substantiate JJJ999's claim that the union is a notable organisation. I have also sourced all the articles that appeared in the Canberra Times that mention the union. There are nine in total, published between 1996 and 2009, which can be summarised as follows:

1. Published 1 September 2009 and titled "Triple win for gifted public speaker", the article is about the Canberra Girls Grammar School winning a debating competition which was organised by the union. The union is mentioned once in passing. The article is about the winning team and most of the article is an interview with a year 10 student who won the best speaker award.
2. Published 27 August 2009 and titled "Students speak out on merits of debating", this article is about the students who won the above debate and also contains some quotes from the year 10 student who won the best speaker award. The article mentions the union twice, in passing and both times when referring the competition.
3. Published 21 September 2005, this is a short paragraph in the "In Brief" section of the paper. The paragraph is about teams from Narrabundah College, Lyneham High and Radford College winning a debating competition. The union helped organise the finals and is mentioned once in passing.
4. Published 3 May 2000, and titled "Man Who Stole Organisations' $5000 Gets Community Service", this article is about the sentencing of a man who was charged with stealing "$5000 from the ACT Debating Union and the Ginninderra Wind Orchestra". The article is a report of the sentencing and the union is mentioned once in passing as one of the victims of the theft.
5. Published 24 March 2000 and titled "Man Who Can't Say No Steals $5000". This article is coverage of the same crime above but covers the conviction. Court adjourned until May 3 for sentencing. The union is mentioned once, in passing, as a victim of the crime.
6. Published 15 February 2000, and titled "Australian Team No 1, No Debating About It", this article is about Australia winning in the World Schools Debating Championships in Pittsburgh. The article quotes a former president of the union who claimed "The Australian team is the first to win the title by unanimous decision". The union is mentioned once in passing, to describe the former president, i.e. "... according to ACT Debating Union president..."
7. Published 30 July 1999, titled "Schools Put Today's News Up For Debate ", this article is about the 1999 National Schools Debating Championships, particularly the ACT team competing. The union is mentioned once in passing.
8. Published 26 July 1999, titled "ACT The Centre Of Debate", this is about the ACT team competing in the National Schools Championships. The article is about the competition and the ACT team competing. The union is mentioned in passing as the source of the claim that the Canberra teams have made "11 grand-final appearances in the national schools championships since 1971".
9. Published 27 November 1996, titled "YassHighmotormouths Collect The Ford Trophy ", this article is about the school teams and individual debaters who won and goes on to discuss some university grants that had been announced. The union is mentioned once.

None of these articles are actually about the union, rather, it is only mentioned in passing in the context of various debating competitions and debaters. If anyone wants a copy of the articles, they can email me and I'll be happy to provide copies. Sarah 05:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)