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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics Olympiad[edit]

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

There seems to be enough information here that the material could be rewritten I suppose, however before we get to that the issue of whether the article should exist needs to be settled. At issue is the promotional writing style and questionable copyright status (I check the copyright violation reporting page, it supposedly came from a copyleft source which makes it acceptable). TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should exist, not as a promotion but in the same way as other similar competitions exist as Wikipedia articles this article should also exist. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_Bowl & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad

I am an academic and have authored the Ethics Olympiad article which covers the early stages of this competition. It is now well established and while the article needs work it deserves some encyclopedic recognition. The writing style can be reworked and I welcome any advise that the editors would like to provide. In terms of copyright the material is not copied and pasted from any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice I can give you is that you never should have bypassed the draft process. They could have helped the article by working on it until it reached a point where it could've remained here. Now when this ends up deleted CSDG4 will prevent recreation of the article in any incarnation similar to the one here for deletion consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure and unadulterated promotion. TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This started at Draft:Ethics Olympiad. It was rejected on multiple submissions for varied reasons. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bypassing AFC was a bad faithed gaming of the system from someone not here for the right reason. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find anything even approaching substantial independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rewritten substantially with each submission and it was submitted most recently, not to bypass the process of review but because I was not able to submit it in any other way. Duff Beers and SmartSE's tone betray bad faith and poor editorial process. Rather than offering assistance in improving the article their simple and destructive mantra is "delete" "delete". "an editor is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at improving the project and the quality of our content" (Wiki NOTHERE). Sydney59 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) How is this article promotional material? It simply states the facts of the event and provides independent references to substantiate the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent coverage and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also believe that simply submitting this straight to the mainspace, and bypassing the AfC process when they could not get it accepted was done in bad faith. In the spirit of transparency, I was a reviewer who declined the article 2 of the 6 times it was declined (although not one of the recent reviewers). However, I don't feel that that it is as promotional as other editors make it out to be. The issue is, unlike the similar Ethics Bowl, this is not notable. News returns Zero hits. As does Newspapers, Books, Scholar and Highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 17 November 2015 (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.