Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permutation (policy debate)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permutation (policy debate)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is incredibly specific and fails WP:GNG because any possible source is not independent from the subject. The GNG says that a topic must have received coverage from sources that are independent from the subject. There are plenty of websites and a couple books that discuss permutations in policy debate, but all of those websites and books are related to policy debate and therefore are not independent. The reason I didn't PROD this is that I want to get a consensus that my interpretation of the word "independent" is legitimate in this case. WP:INDEPENDENT discusses independence mostly as a form of protection against self-promotion or financial benefit, but in my AfD experience I've seen independence as pertaining to sources that don't solely cover policy debate or high school/college debate in general, and common sense certainly leads to that conclusion. Some of the information in this article would work well with a merger into the Policy debate article too, especially seeing as that article doesn't even include the word "permutation". I want to reiterate that I think this article is a pretty good deletion candidate, but I felt it necessary to check consensus concerning the independence of all available sources. For the record, the only source I could find that was independent in the sense I discussed above is what looks to be a memoir, link here. Icebob99 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term is jargon. The article is advice for high-school students participating in debate club. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a how-to for competing in this style of debating. I'm not sure there's much chance of non-specialist sources covering such a specialised term, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the "independence" of the sources is an issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (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.