International Geography Bee: -- Prodraxis talk contribs 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Geography .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete all : It does need secondary sources, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.  CastJared ( talk ) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NAQT officially includes this as one of the bees they recognize, which can be found here .  There are numerous sources for news coverage of winners of the event.  Some recent ones include this one from CBS News Pittsburgh , this one from the Houston Chronicle , this one from the Dayton Daily News , and this one from the Chicago Tribune .  There are many more that could be listed, but these bees and bowls easily get as much coverage as any other ones.  And they are recognized by other quizzing organizations.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not my subject area, but there is quite a lot of RS on these events, such as in the Washington Post U.S. teens win international geography bee .  Has a WP:BEFORE been done here?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 21:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aszx5000 That's about a different competition - the 7 competitions I mentioned above are sponsored by International Academic Competitions, while the one you mentioned is sponsored by National Geographic.  -- Prodraxis talk contribs 21:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I now see what you mean Prodraxis, that WPO ref was for a different - and notable - bee.   I am getting an impression that this is like Beauty Pagents, and some of these "Bees" are full commercial enterprises that sell pre-test books on Amazon and then market themselves extensively.   Do you think the above group, which seem all connected, are from that genre?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aszx5000 : Yeah....  it is a "beauty pageant" type of situation in here.  Like there are some notable pageants like Miss America and tons of other non notable ones, there are notable Geography Bees and such (e.g. National Geography Bee ) while there are other non notable ones.  -- Prodraxis talk contribs 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Some of the articles already include references from reliable sources about individual winners. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is kind of a major tournament. And there are enough sources to support it. It has an entire website and sources can lead one to conclude that thisis notable. Especially when the David Madden ( Jeopardy! contestant) page redirects to this. iac Is one of the major options for quizbowl, and is notable amd credible. The recent IAC had 1,800 attending, excluding thousands who tried to qualify for nationals. 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] IP, notability is not inherited (e.g. just because a video game is notable it doesn't mean that any of the characters are also notable.) Plus notability requires significant coverage in independent secondary sources, not primary ones. That means it needs to have coverage that isn't from the official IAC websites, but there's a lack of that coverage. -- Prodraxis talk contribs 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ever since geo bee from.  national geographic went away, iac is a source of bees 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but i agree these websites are kind of big 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.iacompetitions.com/ https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php? t=26562 the 1.8K was for middle school, there are more for high school.  https://www.cedarhillprep.com/international-academic-competitions-2/ Note that its generally hard to include sources for this kind of topic.  You just need sources from e.g. facebook as proof, not a source.  This involves the presumption of your WP:GNG 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) 01:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Um, social media like online forums and facebook are not credible sources.  -- Prodraxis talk contribs 01:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what sources do you expect thrn, these act as proof 63.117.71.249 ( talk ) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Read WP:RS for more information. -- Prodraxis talk contribs 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment IP editor 63.117.71.249 may have a COI with the subject based on geographical and/or behavioral evidence - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_IP_editor_at_an_AfD -- Prodraxis talk contribs 04:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete – fails to meet notability guidelines and has received practically zero significant non-internal coverage CitizenKang414 ( talk ) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I posted at the top of the discussion about only a fraction of the coverage.  I can include many, many more articles, both current and from years past, if needed.  I will include a copy of the posting from above, below.  Also, several non-profit universities have hosted tournaments in recent years, including Princeton University.  High schools and middle schools report on their participation (non-internally).  If necessary, I can add more links to coverage.  I am new to this and do not know if it was better to put the links at the top of the discussion or here.  NAQT officially includes this as one of the bees they recognize, which can be found here .  There are numerous sources for news coverage of winners of the event.  Some recent ones include this one from CBS News Pittsburgh , this one from the Houston Chronicle , this one from the Dayton Daily News , and this one from the Chicago Tribune .  There are many more that could be listed, but these bees and bowls easily get as much coverage as any other ones.  And they are recognized by other quizzing organizations.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having done even more cursory research, I can provide a longer list of articles, if needed.  Also, the amount and kinds of reportage - in local and state newspapers and television stations - seems to be exactly in line with every other Quizbowl tournament - those hosted by or listed by NAQT and other state organizations.  Why it would be this particular bee and bowl that is suggested for deletion is a bit confusing, given the others.  Scripps and National Geographic (before it ended) had corporate sponsorship which naturally leads/led to more national coverage for them.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 01:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all My initial reaction was that these may need to be nominated individually, because the nom didn't explain they are all relatively recent events run by the same organisation, hence why they were grouped together, and I was prepared to try and keep these or at least make some sort of argument to spin off the AfDs.  That's not needed, though.  What's very clear upon review is that there's no independent secondary coverage of any of these articles - it's all routine local coverage of winners, citing the org's website, and a link to a Google Sheet.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But this appears to be the same kind coverage for all of the regular quizzing competitions at the middle school and high school level.  Does that mean that Knowledge Bowl's and Commissioner's Academic Challenge 's pages and other state bowl's and bee's pages should be deleted as well? None of the NAQT competitions receive the same coverage as Scripps. Theirs are all in line with the History Bee and Bowl competitions, but there is not a move to delete those pages. Why is this the only one, when local coverage of the events is what is generated for this kind of competition? Santoslhelper ( talk ) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion - what matters is the sort of coverage the articles at this specific AfD receive. If other bees are basically sourced only to their own website, then they could probably be deleted as well. SportingFlyer T · C 21:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be clear, I do not think any of these competitions' pages should be deleted.  But if what is noted above - citing org's pages for winners and local coverage - is all that is required for deletion, then nothing but Scripps would survive.  It seems more prudent to recognize that quiz bowl and bee competitions at the middle school and high school level are valid topics for inclusion, but that their individual tournaments are not likely to garner more than annual local and statewide coverage.  But the aggregate of that coverage, year over year, and the number of participants, in the many thousands every year, make for something significant.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not impossible.  Wikipedia requires a topic to be notable before it can have a stand-alone article, and we define notability as being recognised by secondary sources.  If the only sources we can use to create an article are WP:PRIMARY , then it's not notable enough.  Unfortunately we also discount routine local news stories - none of the "local child wins bee" article are significant coverage of the bees, because they rarely talk about the actual event.  If you can find secondary sources which talk specifically about the events, then we can keep these, but as they stand they're basically just extensions of the web sites, mostly if not all created by one user with few other edits outside these pages, which potentially suggests promotional concerns as well.  The Times of India article at least has a couple sentences on the Geography Bee, but I don't think that's enough.  We also have the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to avoid during deletion discussions - each article must be judged on their own notability merits.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much for the thoughtful and detailed reply.  I will try to gather sources more in line with what you suggest.  Appreciate the guidance.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I posted below about PACE recognizing National History Bee and Bowl tournaments as a legitimate alternative for qualifying for PACE NSC events, which suggests they are as legitimate as any other quizzing organization.  Also, I have included a list of dissertations, academic books, and peer-reviewed articles that discuss National History Bee and Bowl, showing that there is an academic interest in the subject.  I can include discussion of these in the main article (including ones that have been critical of representations in NHBB and other quizzing bowls), if that would help.  Bre’z, Skylar, "Reframing National Women's History Month: Practicalities and Consequences" (2021).  Dissertations.  3715.  https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3715 Dhingra, Pawan.  Hyper Education: Why Good Schools, Good Grades, and Good Behavior Are Not Enough.  NYU Press, 2020.  JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1n6ptp5.  Accessed 8 June 2023.  Worrell, F. C., Knotek, S. E., Plucker, J. A., Portenga, S., Simonton, D. K., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schultz, S. R., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016).  Competition’s Role in Developing Psychological Strength and Outstanding Performance.  Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 259–271.  https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000079 Adams, Caralee J. "Advocates Finding Ways to Bulk Up History Learning; Many activities take place out of school."  Education Week, vol.  32, no. 36, 10 July 2013, p. 10.  Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A337610489/BIC? u=colu68650&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=77baed3a.  Accessed 7 June 2023.  Nicholas D. Hartlep, Daisy B. Ball, Kevin E. Wells, Hannah M. Wilk, Brandon O. Hensley; An Exploratory Analysis of Scripps Spelling Bee Winners, 1925–2019: Is There Evidence of Asian American Overrepresentation? .  Journal of Minority Achievement, Creativity, and Leadership 13 December 2020; 1 (2): 248–273.  doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/minoachicrealead.1.2.0248 (While this last one is primarily focused on Scripps, it discusses the National History Bee and Bowl and National Geographic Bee alongside it.) Santoslhelper ( talk ) 01:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the link to the PACE page that discusses qualifying, one of several pages on their website where NHBB is discussed as a way to qualify for PACE NSC: website Santoslhelper ( talk ) 02:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: For all the reasons that I have listed in replies.  But, just to reiterate, to delete for the reasons proffered by the votes to delete so far would mean that all other quiz competitions and organizations for middle and high school (save Scripps, I know) would need to be considered for the same deletion, as they only generate similar local coverage and report their results on their own pages.  It is not clear why this particular competition would be judged differently.  I, personally, do not think any of them should be cut.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 21:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) — Santoslhelper ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete (all).  Per my discussion above, this is not to be confused with the other notable Bees.  These are commercial enterprises where the organizers generate revenue from selling test books to the young contestants (a bit like Beauty pageants).   I haven't found - and nor has there been presented at this AfD - a single quality independent RS that gives SIGCOV to these tests (never mind WP:THREEREFS ).  Generally, when this straightforward test (no pun) can't be met, the "walls of text" often follow.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not true.  The organizers do not produce study materials for this bee that are sold to the participants.  I understand if the page is cut for some other reason, but what the above comment is stating is not true.  This leads me to believe that they, and possibly others, are confusing this bee and bowl with another.  It is very easy to prove that the above statement is not true.  Here is a link to the website for the bee and bowl .  There are no materials being sold in the manner suggested above.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 02:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a for-profit and privately owned business.   Here is the founder David Madden talking about his model (and promising never to sell to investors).   There are many of these "pageants" with their own for-profit business models.   Some sell their own books, some take licensing fees from others selling the books.   Some make revenue from registration fees and hotel bookings etc.   We have lots of articles on Wikipedia on for-profit enterprises, but as with WP:NCORP , they must demonstrate notability.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having quickly looked at his BLP, I don't think that the owner of these tests, David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) , would also get through AfD.   Most of his refs are WP:PRIMARY from Jeopardy!, and there is little proper SIGCOV on him as a standalone person by quality independent RS.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 06:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This would seem to not be the case as PACE (Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence) writes this on their website : "Teams cannot qualify for the PACE NSC through competitions whose questions focus entirely or predominantly on a single academic subject (e.g. National History Bee and Bowl, National Science Bowl). The Wild Card Committee may consider performance at subject-specific academic competitions in the event that an applying team has a lack of available opportunities to play all-subject quizbowl in their area."  Here is the link to the PACE Wikipedia page.  If they see National History Bee and Bowl as a legitimate competition for qualification for PACE NSC, that would suggest that National History Bee and Bowl is legitimate.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 01:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not trying to prove existence/Legitimacy but notability .   Being listed in PACE does not help notability.   We need quality third party independent WP:RS doing WP:SIGCOV pieces on these tests.  We don't have that as yet.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am a little surprised about your comment on commercial enterprises.  Most sports leagues are private for profit commercial enterprises.  Does that disqualify their sports from being listed on Wikipedia?  What is the actual policy and / or rule on something being owned by a commercial enterprise?  107.137.69.146 ( talk ) 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello IP and welcome to Wikipedia.  We're not really focusing on the "commercial" part; instead we are focusing on notability .  I do have to say that commercial or not these competitions fail the notability guideline as they lack significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which is the minimum threshold for notability.  -- Prodraxis talk contribs 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) where they are mentioned as an alternative to deletion . Not notable, but a valid search term. The link between the two has been established in RSs [26] [27] -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was going nominate David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) for AfD next, as I don't think he meets GNG either?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't looked at his article, but I would guess that any AFD has a pretty good chance of resulting in a merge to List_of_Jeopardy! _contestants#1984–present , since he does get a coverage from RSs for his Jeopardy! streak and coming back for subsequent events.  -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 00:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense to me.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any support for the late redirect suggestion?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems fine, I didn't see the link until I read the article, but it seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's better to just delete these under WP:ASTONISH .  SportingFlyer T · C 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking about this more, my fear is that this is a commercial enterprise with well-populated UPE-type articles.  Even in this AfD, we have seen determined SPA activity (for a commercial enterprise, which implies a UPE).   Therefore, I also think we should still delete (and I also think should ensure that it cannot be undeleted without proper sourcing).  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 22:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think redirect is fine, too.  Honestly, I didn't expect to join Wikipedia - I'm just someone who is supportive of grade school and high school quizzing competitions as beneficial for young people, and I came on here to read more about it and saw that this was up for deletion and wondered why.  Then I read some claims in the discussion that were clearly, demonstrably false ("beauty pageant" language and such), so I sought to set things straight.  Then the conversation pivoted from that disparaging kind of language to talk of "notability," which, if that's the metric, I understand.  It has been interesting to see the behind-the-scenes of all this, though, but as pure numbers are what counts, I fear I'm outnumbered.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only 13 edits to Wikipedia and within a few minutes of the above posting, you made your first edit for two days ...  That is why I think these commercial enterprise articles need to be deleted (and watched after).  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thought my post before was my last on the topic, but as I'm being attacked directly, I guess I have to wade in again.  Yes, exactly (re: the edits).  I have only edited this topic and edited soon after someone else posted (there's a notification I can see when something new has been added).  I saw no reason to sign up before - my dissertation topics were well-represented and accurately presented, the teams I follow were updated regularly.  Everything in Wikipedia that I followed seemed fine.  Then, I saw something that seemed amiss.  So, I thought, why not jump in a try to correct it.  Isn't that the point?  Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia - to edit things to present the world an accurate accounting on a wide variety of topics?  I had no idea Wikipedia was this hostile behind the scenes.  Santoslhelper ( talk ) 12:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect