Talk:National All-Star Academic Tournament

Proposed deletion

This page needs to be pulled from Wikipedia, it is simply an advertisement for the event and has no legitimate citations. Suemanning1972 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a very flawed article, but I personally don't see a reason to remove it just yet. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There's virtually no coverage this NASAT outside of quizbowl circles. I've inclined to support the deletion of this article, but I'll see it can be improved this afternoon.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is non-quizbowl coverage out there, enough to keep this article existing (although in an almost-stub-ish form). TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked all over, and it seems like any mention whatsoever of NASAT on a non-quizbowl website is the reporting on various Ladue students winning NASAT in 2013. I guess that's the bare minimum?--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 20:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Suemanning1972I don't share your view that the current version of this article is self-serving, especially compared to previously versions. That being said notability seems like it may be issue. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The person posting this article continues to write incorrect, self-serving, and undocumented statements about the NTAE, the National Tournament of Academic Excellence. I have corrected the article several times, but the author continues to repost misleading information. This article is not in the spirit of integrity that we expect from Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be removed. Suemanning1972 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no "author", just multiple editors.
2. Could you go into more detail about what exactly is incorrect or misleading? It's quite obvious that this article was originally created by someone who was quite biased and very unfamiliar with how Wikipeida works, but I don't believe that just removing content that seems inaccurate is the correct solution. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your attention to this matter. here is some background: Originally the author wrote that the National All-Star Academic Tournament (NAAT) was established as an alternative to alleged "poorly-written" questions in the NTAE (National Tournament of Academic Excellence). This was a biased value judgement. By the way, the NAAT is a for-profit business and the NTAE is non-profit event sponsored in large part by the State of Florida, the Polk County School Board, Polk Education Foundation, and the Pinellas County School Board. It is in the self-serving, economic interest of the NAAT to badmouth and discredit the NATE.

Once the statement above was removed because of its obvious self-serving, opinionated nature, the author then claimed that the NTAE was out of business and that his (her) NAAT was set up to replace it. (There were no citations.) This statement was not the case. The text in the article was corrected by me.

The author's response was to repost the statement that the NAAT was set up to replace the "defunct" NTAE in 2010 and an irrelevant, bogus (fake) citation was added. I read the entire citation link, it had nothing to do with the statement. It was just put there assuming no one would check it. The NTAE was never "defunct." For a couple years the competition was suspended because of funding issues with government grants. It was common understanding that the competition would resume as soon as the politicians worked out the funding, which they did. The 2014 NTAE was held Disney World's Contemporary Resort just a few weeks ago.

You are right, it probably is not enough just to continue to correct their seemingly endless inaccurate posts. That is why I think the article should be removed. If some time in the future (an) author(s) with integrity and no conflict of interest is found, then of course, I would have no problem with that. Until that time, because the article writer(s) continue to use Wikipedia to spread misleading information about a competitor, they should be stopped. Respectfully expressed Suemanning1972 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the only third-party reporting of the event is a profile of the achivements of former Ladue Horton Watkins High School student Max Schindler, who is current a the hsquizbowl forum board liason and a writer for HSAPQ.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, does this make the article noteworthy enough for Wikipedia and justify it being posted? Suemanning1972 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the third-party reporting and Max's status as an HSAPQ member have zero connection. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that I should disclose that I am quite familiar with NASAT and NTAE, the differences between the two, the "mainstream quiz bowl" community's views and opinions on NTAE (views that, for the most part, I share), etc., so there's probably a lot of bias on my part when I say this article should be kept. If you wish for the status of this article to be discussed among (theoretically) more neutral parties, then I encourage you to head towards Wikipedia's articles for deletion page, where you can start a discussion about deleting this.

In the meantime, your statements have been enlightening and appear to have been (mostly) dealt with. Ideally, we can come to an agreement that involves keeping this article, but if not, that's fine. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

NASAT as an alternative to the NTAE

Ted Gioia's announcement [1] contains the following lines "However, we believe that all-star teams deserve a better event than what is currently available for the all-star audience... This tournament will differ from previous all-star events run by other organizations in several key ways.". This undoubtedly is referring to the NTAE, I mean do we need a source explicitly spelling the connection out?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
How about this: "Originally, it was designed as an alternative to other all-star academic competitions."--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

YES, the source must explicity spell out the relevant information. Do I think Ted is referring to NTAE? Absolutely, but that's what Wikipedia defines as WP:OR. I have gone over this with you before, so hopefully you remember next time.

Your revised wording would be better. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll insert the alternative text in this case.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714214323/http://docs2.ladue.k12.mo.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-4646/2013%20National%20Quizbowl%20Awards%20Press%20Release-1.pdf to http://docs2.ladue.k12.mo.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-4646/2013%20National%20Quizbowl%20Awards%20Press%20Release-1.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)