Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 17 July 2008

Blanchard Valley Conference

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference
• Articles for deletion/Blanchard Valley Conference (2nd nomination)

Blanchard Valley Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOTE; High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Material is mainly duplicate information anyway that is provided on a central list. Examples of articles that have been deleted from the central list already, Cincinnati Hills League, Greater Miami Conference, and Suburban League. Therefore these other 20+ articles that show no difference than those should be deleted as well. Here are some examples from other states that have had conferences deleted, Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference. These are the 27 articles proposed by User:UWMSports for deletion as stated in previous discussion. Other conferences will be evaluated individually. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep with reluctance - I am not convinced that all of these nominees are in violation of WP:N, and I am pretty sure that nowhere does it say "high school athletic conferences are automatically not notable." I would be more willing to look at them a few at a time, because I am equally sure that many of these are pretty likely worthy of deletion ..... but I can't do it lock stock and barrel. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Facts laid out well by nominator. Doesn't make sense to have some exist and others not. I would say if keep is the decision those deleted conferences should be re-built. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - To be clear: you are OK with deleting articles with established notability just because an editor chose to bundle them, and your thinking is "eh, the editors can just start over from scratch and rewrite it", even if it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place? I'm just asking.
• Keep - Please look at specific articles that I've been able to take the time to rewrite with sourcing: Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference. These articles should show that when given time, they can be properly sourced to show their notability. I've been slowly working on these articles to get them up to par, but being stubs is NOT a valid deletion reason. Additionally, the nominator has been relatively active in inhibiting or harassing people working on these articles, as can be seen at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. matt91486 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, new responders, please take the time to read the previous AfD. Most of the pieces of information cited aren't valid things, like PRODs that missed contesting, and a botched CSD. None of the information cited is actually consensus-based precedent, and shouldn't really be used in this, or any, AfD. matt91486 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've long proposed those 27 articles be deleted based on the reasons BurpTheBaby has layed out. However, Matt91486 and a couple others have done a nice job upgrading some of the articles and it's a long job with basically no recognition. I responded to a note he left on my talkpage the other day wanting to know how I intend on handling these articles in the future. I said I'd give him and others the summer to keep improving the articles based on their efforts so far. I think he deserves that. I would encourage the other users that were so big in the last AfD to help Matt. He's going to need it. So I will refrain from voting delete until Labor Day at the earliest. I recommend that this AfD be suspended. The user who proposed it has not been cooperative with those on the other side of the fence either. I don't like the timing of this AfD one bit. -- UWMSports (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per every lasy reason from the last gruelling(sp?) Afd. I will request a withdraw, take a look at Burp's contribs. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep the nomination is being made in bad faith. It was made in an attempt to undermine the efforts of the Misplaced Pages community to improve these articles. It should also be noted that the previous nomination was closed barely a month ago Frank Anchor 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Frank Anchor above. This AfD seems to be exactly what WP:GAME is here to prevent NewYork483 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I assure you that this is not bad faith. I find it funny that no one is helping Matt with the conferences, but the moment an AfD comes to light everyone cries foul. Excluding matt and a tad bit of frank, how come none of you have helped rebuild the conferences? It really is embarrassing. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

B.B. - While I am no fan of abandoned articles, I think:

1. All people leaving comments here do not necessarily work on articles related to athletic conferences. Some people work on other articles, and coming through AfD, see one, examine it, and leave their comments. Some of these people will oppose deletion for a variety reasons. They have the right to.

2. A lot of people are in the midst of working on other articles that are equally in need of care, or in other stages of improvement.

It is a shame that some articles end up in bad shape for very long periods of time, but that's no reason to be lecturing everyone for not helping.

Further, I note that B.B. has been here for shade over a month. I'm not sure I would go the route of saying this is a bad faith nom unless there has been some communication as to why this is a bad idea. Still, it is every editor's right to make a nomination, just as it is the community's right to recommend an article for being kept or deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above, also pointing out other articles that were deleted in a similar fashion is not a valid reason for deletion. Busta Baxta (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are turning OtherStuffExists 180 degrees. Thats to be used when a user complains that their article is a target when others of similar quality exist. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Other stuff exists works both ways. Read the policy. It states "We do not have an article on y , so we should not have an article on this " as being an invalid reason to delete an article. Frank Anchor 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails Notability. Just because a couple users are looking to upgrade the articles that does not make them notable. WP:PRETTY is not a reason to keep articles. I see all or nothing here. The previous AfD had other conferences that were unique for reasons like existing in two states, famous athletes, etc. These 27 do not differ from each other even if some look nicer than others. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how you can compare the West Shore Conference article with the Ohio Cardinal Conference article. They differ significantly. ~ Eóin (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how WP:PRETTY applies with the number of reliable sources I've been able to find. matt91486 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not a matter of WP:PRETTY! There are some articles with references in WP:RS. They have established notability and verifiability. They are full articles (not lists, directories, or some other grey area). There is no reason for them to be listed. I have already said that this nomination was not in bad faith, and I stand by it, but there has clearly been a grave error. I would strongly recommend ending this, and trying smaller bundles, or listing them singly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Reliable sources don't establish that something is notable. My son was written about for his 1st place victory at a local Science fair. While that source is from a reliable paper, it does not make him notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages entry. What you have here is basically you have a few local websites that publish about these schools and some local newspapers that have to fill their sports page. Don't be fooled because something has sources. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not a directory and that is precisely what these conferences are. A directory of every high school conference in Ohio. --FancyMustard (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "fooled" by anything. Your son, had he been in several newspapers, would have only not been notable for one event status. High school conferences last for years and wouldn't have the same one event notability. These articles, when fleshed out fully, are not at all directories. You should re-read the criteria that you linked to. These articles don't meet any of those, so I have no idea what you're trying to imply with that policy. matt91486 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being mentioned in WP:RS does not automatically confer notability, and your example is a good one. Some of these are nothing more than directories, and should be deleted. Some are not. Some have (within the context of what they are) notable histories and have had notable membership. All I am asking is: relist them so that we can review them separately. My history is to tend deletion, but I do not support railroading good articles out with the bad. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a very bad example. A WP:BLP has more stringent rules for notability than most of the other articles on Misplaced Pages. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

These were 27 that most people agreed upon as equal status at the last AfD. Everything and anything can have a history. The Ohio Cardinal Conference formed in 2001. It is hardly a rich and notable history. --FancyMustard (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Two of them have been completely rewritten since then; the rest have not had the chance yet. And the length of history is not what's important, it's the amount of media coverage the league has received. The FIRST sentence of the actual content of WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The Ohio Cardinal Conference certainly has received that, and I think the article pretty clearly illustrates that. matt91486 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• General Comment - as I mentioned on a talk page a while back, my biggest issue with these articles is the precedent that they provide. So if it comes to us needing to reach a consensus somewhere, I'll be willing to move towards a deletion of the articles that have not been rewritten with sources, which would amount to the nominated articles minus Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference which assert notability quite clearly, provided that the deletion has no prejudice towards recreation of articles when we are able to have them finished and sourced. I don't think this is an ideal solution, since I think that stub articles are fine since they can be shown to be notable with work and it's ridiculous to delete things for being incomplete, but I think its even more ridiculous to go round and round in another week long debate and get nowhere, so that's where I'm willing to compromise. My biggest issue is that this AfD should not be able to serve as a precedent for the deletion of sourced, notable high school conferences. If we have to delete the ones that are just lists temporarily until they are expanded, I disagree, but whatever, that's not the big issue for me. I just wanted to be completely up front about my position this time in hopes that it doesn't spiral as out of control as before. matt91486 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Now that is something I can live with. If the article has no sourcing, has not asserted notability, then tie a piece of lead to it and kick it off the deck. My concern is that this nomination, accidental as it was, just seemed to bundle some local conferences together and delete them, followed by the promise that others are on the way. As at least one editor proffered, it sounded like a man with an agenda to get rid of all such articles (I didn't wholly buy that, but I can see why that came out), and another who basically said (let's delete irrelevant of of notability or WP:RS, those can just be started over. That dog don't hunt! The problem with these bundled noms is that you run into these issues. I would wholly approve of your suggestion, with the note that in the future, you need to be more careful about what you are bundling together. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Matt's idea is a good compromise, but I wouldn't have a problem for deleted articles to be worked on in the drafts User:Davidwr provided or in a given sandbox for reinstatement down the road. I still am puzzled by the timing of this AfD though as progress has been made. However, if this compromise curtails endless back and forth debate than I'm for it. -- UWMSports (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all for now. I like the idea of coming back in 3-4 months and seeing how these are doing. There seems to be agreement that some of these are well sourced, and others less so. Further, I strongly suspect that most all of them could be well sourced given time and effort. Hobit (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep! I find these articles to be helpful in understanding the relationships between communities within a conference. And the history of certain conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - High school conferences are not notable as the proof by BTB illustrates. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the evidence he provided in greater detail; many of the pieces don't really correlate to these articles. One, for example, was a speedy deletion of an article without context, NOT a notability-related deletion of a conference. None of the others were consensus based decisions either. matt91486 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were a speedy deletion it clearly met some criteria for not belonging on Wiki. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you read what matt said that criteria was CSD A1. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article in that case was just poorly written, it had nothing to do with the subject matter. It was just a really bad article. matt91486 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Being simply poorly written is not grounds for deletion, especially a speedy delete. I've been in many AfDs that are there based on sloppiness and the result is generally a keep. So clearly there must have been a good reason why Cincinnati Hills League was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Interstate Eight Conference, where the article was deleted for a lack of context so it could not be identified - in other words, a poorly written article. As for Cincinnati Hills League, we've been through this before, the admin is no longer active, so we are unable to figure out what he or she was thinking, because there is no set policy on high school athletic conferences. I'm not sure why we keep going round and round in circles on that, though, because there clearly isn't a policy, otherwise we'd be citing it. All we have is non-consensus based, unilateral decisions. matt91486 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep! As per Hobit. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems like we have a split vote here and if that's the case then precedent should be the tiebreaker. Otherwise it appears this debate will go on forever. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a split vote, because this is not a vote. AfD is about finding consensus, not about taking a numeric tally of ballots. In the absence of a consensus, history has typically been to let the articles stand, though there are some ideas on the table here that are between "keep" and "delete all". LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't keep having no consensus. I will go with the compromise Matt provided. Keep the two articles he's really worked hard on and if he feels he can get those deleted eventually up to code in his sandbox like UWM proposed then that's cool. But for now, other than those 2, the articles are nothing more than what's on the central list. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not have a problem with that, unless someone wants to make a case for another article. The only information I can see in those articles is information very easily restored. Those other two should be kept.

Having said that, sometimes consensus is not reached, though I would like to think that Matt's suggestion is the most reasonable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see this whole thing going no consensus forever if a compromise isn't reached. I do think this is fair, hopefully others will too. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• keep all and consider merging, perhaps by state. The guidelines are of no use for something like this--the basic question is whether we want them in the encyclopedia or not--we can find sufficient reason for whichever we want. I have no personal interest in the subject, but as others do, the default should be to keep. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all. There is no doubt that all of these conferences have multiple reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable. --- RockMFR 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Only a few of them actually have sources. And the best one is Ohio Cardinal Conference, but those sources are from very local newspapers and websites as Mustard stated above. I think people are way too swayed by sources here on Misplaced Pages. Obviously a good article needs sources, but I think a lot of people feel if a topic has a couple sources that appear reliable it makes the topic automatically notable. I'm sure if you dig enough on anything you can find sources. For example, my church does a bake sale every year and notices of this are posted in several local newspapers. Even the local news channel does a story on it. So can I can site all of this and make a page on my church's bake sale? Of course not. You do enough digging you can find sources on just about everything. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates