Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Sports on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sports. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sports}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sports.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

See also: game-related deletions


Contents

[edit] Sports

[edit] Pioneer Conference

[edit] Arbitrary Header Section

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Pioneer Conference (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Also pages are duplicate information that definitely is not relevant enough to have info listed multiple times on multiple pages. Full list of conferences with schools already exists. Why does each conference with schools need to be duplicated on several individual pages, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences.

  • THREE BITS OF PRECEDENT FOR DELETION STRAIGHT FROM OHIO CONFERENCE LIST
  • 1.) Cincinnati Hills League
  • 2.) Greater Miami Conference
  • 3.) Suburban League
Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference
To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3
For sake of space see... Category:Ohio_high_school_sports_conferences. These other articles have been tagged as they are other high school conferences in Ohio. Note that several of these have been tagged with notability issues. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Notice of possible Single Purpose Accounts
The following accounts have made few or no edits outside this topic:

[edit] Beginning of discussions

  • Keep All Notable conferences. Most pages have more than a simple list of the schools Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Because its duplicate information and Huskies provided precedent, but I think the list should remain. --UWMSports (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason for the deletion on the page I gave was high school conferences don't exist. And other crap exists is when a person says why are you deleting my page when other crappy stuff exists elsewhere. Doesn't really work against deletion here.--GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, other stuff exists does work here. The merits of the other articles that GoHuskies9904 brought up that are both articles and on lists are'nt up for discussion. just the athletic conferences. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by what you are saying. The list is fine because its centralized and all you really need for high school athletic conferences. Having multiple pages with the same thing added with seasonal sports just wastes space. As Airtuna states below, everyone knows basketball is a winter sport, baseball is a spring sport. That doesn't add much to an article. If every page could contain a full history and what not then they might be acceptable. But right now each page is basically not much more than a list of schools with links to their home pages and the sports they play which are universal. What you really have is a central list and then 25+ individual conference lists. They aren't notable enough to be listed in several different places. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Most pages have more than the list of schools. The ones that don't should have info added as i mentioned in my vote below. If theres nothing to add, then they should be listed for deletion as separate articles. But back to the other stuff exists discussion, the fact that some articles were merged to a list has nothing to do with this discussion or these athletic conferences <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep...agree with Frank. Most pages, Northeast Ohio Conference included, have more than just lists; they have histories and explanations. Portage Trail Conference is another example that is more than a simple list. Just look at the Northeast Ohio Conference article and see that each sport has a different divisional makeup, something that is unique and requires an article to explain it. As for Pioneer Conference I think it should be expanded with relevant history and other useful information beyond a simple list.--JonRidinger (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The articles that are now just a simile list should be expanded to include sports offered, history, etc. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep All per Jon & Frank--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - The purpose of having high school athletic conferences flood over 30+ pages when there's a central list is what exactly? Its common knowledge for the most part what sports are fall, winter and spring. That's the only thing I see besides a list of schools on each conference page. There are about 2 or 3 pages that are further expanded, but this is the kind of thing where you keep all or delete all since they are part of a unit. --Airtuna08 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Speedy Delete - Precedent was provided with the Cincinnati article Huskies gave. Reason for deletion was high school athletics conferences are not notable. Also, TunaFish brings up a good point, why are all these separate articles necessary when a central list already exists? A listing of seasonal sports is pretty much uniform everywhere, so the fact the individual pages contain those do not make them worthy of standing alone! --FancyMustard (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's no different than having a list of schools and then having an article about each school. The list of athletic conferences in Ohio is a centralized list (i.e. a starting point), just like lists showing schools by county or schools by state, etc. Athletic conferences have histories, different setups, etc. I've mentioned two that have been tagged for deletion, both of which already contain explanations as to why and how they formed, what schools are a part of them and why, as well as notable traits and other info not contained in a list (enrollments, location, colors, etc...just like in a collegiate conference article). Neither of those fit the reasoning of just being duplicate lists.--JonRidinger (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we have a reason, not just per so and so's comments. Not disputing you, just curious as to why YOU think the pages should stay. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay then. Take Western Buckeye League for an example. It doesn't fit the stereotype of just a list of schools with the sports. It conatins athletic history as far back as the 1940's. Not to mention, the main category these articles are in has around 255 High School Conferences; picking Ohio as a subcat is easy to deal with. But all of those articles really don't assert any notability? I find that hard to believe. And since we're getting rid of high school conferences; might as well Tfd the templates and tag all other conferences for this Afd as well. Have to keep one step ahead. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, could you please point out anywhere else, besides one admin's opinion that high school conferences are not notable? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you point out where an admin supported a high school conference in an AfD. I gave you some precedent where it wasn't notable in the past. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • undent:Okay, that wasn't an attack. Just a question. And no I will not go through every Afd looking for a High Scholl Conference one, and then going through every !vote of support to see if one was an admin. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well you had asked for another one from me when I already provided one. It would be your move to find one that backs your cause. And I didn't take it as an attack, just more of an odd request. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have begun to look for the repository of closed Afds and can only find open ones. I'll let you know if I turn anything up. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All The individual pages can serve as documents for league histories. That's one of the nice unique things about Wikipedia, they have articles on things you may not find elsewhere. I liked that this site gave credibility to topics that didn't normally have any. Frank12 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Recommend Delete, no official vote - No one uses Wikipedia to look up high school conferences. I think there are way too many uneccessary articles on Wiki. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— BurpTheBaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Careful with blanket statements like "no one." Most high school athletics conferences, at least the ones I have looked for in Ohio, do not have official websites; most of the info on each conference comes from newspaper articles, history books, and school or other websites, so Wikipedia is one of the few places that puts it all together. Just because you may not use Wikipedia to look up info on a high school conference doesn't mean no one else does. Further, not all states have high school athletics conferences like Ohio does, so they are somewhat unique. Utah, for example, simply assigns high schools to regions, which act as a conference but a school does not have a direct say as to what region they are in and the regions themselves do not have rules or guildelines unique to themselves like an Ohio high school conference can. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply Not having a website deosn't have anything to do with notability. Take Brookside, Ohio; they don't have their own website. Western Buckeye League & Ohio Valley Athletic Conference; the first two I looked at both had websites as well. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Exactly, I for one usually turn to Wikipedia to look up a topic that may not be written about somewhere else. I figure since anyone can edit, someone probably wrote about whatever it is I want to look up. Also, that's interesting about Utah high schools! Frank12 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment If there aren't any websites or what not on the subject, why should it be notable for Wikipedia. You would think those sites that specialize in high school sports would have it. If they don't, why should a broad encyclopedia like Wikipedia have them? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've always had the notion that because of Wikipedia's unique setup, it included a wider range of topics than other encyclopedias. If it didn't, I wouldn't find it any more significant than the rest. Frank12 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There may not be an official "Pioneer Conference Website" but a website does not necessarily equal notability. I would venture to say that most high school conferences don't have a website because they simply don't regard the costs of upkeeping a good website as a good use of money or they simply don't have the money period. High school conferences in Ohio are similar to collegiate conferences in how they are formed, their management, and structured, but high school conferences don't have big sponsorship deals to bring in money like their collegiate counterparts. The conferences, however, are frequently mentioned as governing bodies in newspaper articles and by the schools who are members; they are legal entities, not just loose associations like a region. And, it's not that there aren't any websites on the subject, but there are no comprehensive ones. That is typical of a lot of topics on Wikipedia, even higher notability...that being sources and info in a variety of scattered places both on and off line. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only two edits, one to their userpage and one to this Afd. Suspect a meatpuppet. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    For fairness of the vote, you can discount mine, Mustard is my co-worker who was talking about it during the afternoon. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — BurpTheBaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Can't really use that as a reason Bobby, who looks up most of the pages on Wiki, haha. And you can't vote in AfDs I vote in. Just a proximity rule.--FancyMustard (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    They got you guys on a technicality but I'm more concerned about the flood gate opening with all these conflicted users who are getting in contact with each other over this. I think their vote should be looked at as less since clearly no one who creates an article is going to say delete to their own article. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If every user who participated in the creation of these pages vote its going to be unfairly slanted. How many people without a WP:COI are going to see the AfD? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All for now. Some articles are written very well and are informative while others are just a list of schools and maybe a list of the sports sanctioned by the league. This nom borders on or maybe crosses the line on WP:AON. Tag the articles with notability concerns and relist those articles individually if the concerns are not resolved in an appropriate amount of time. Ben1283 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    modified, see in arbitrary break 6
  • Keep - too much variation in quality among these articles; need to nominate problematic pieces individually. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect on a case-by-case basis, as per Christopher Parham above. Surely the nom is correct that there is no need for a stub for every conference when we have a centralized list (they can be changed to redirects to the main list), but for at least a couple of these it appears there is notable information. (Disclosure: I am moderating a Wikiquette alert involving two involved users) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Also, be careful to make sure any useful information is merged when doing the redirects. For instance, some of the individual conference stubs have the conference logo, and it would be nice to merge that in to the main list when available. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    We could put some of the material into the central list. I'm still not sure how notable any of this really is, but merging stuff over to the list could be a good compromise, because a lot of people feel the material should exist, but its obviously excessive to have several stubs on these articles as well. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I agree with Ben1283, this is an all or nothing decision. We cannot be selective in which to keep and which to delete. Either keep all because they are equally part of the Ohio HS system or delete all. Doesn't make sense to have articles on just a few of the Ohio HS conferences just because they look nice. They all have the exact same notability or lack of notability.--UWMSports (talk) Today, 12:34 pm (UTC-4)
  • That is the complete opposite of what I said. This nom violates WP:AON because the conferences should be listed individually due to great ranges of notability and information in each of the articles Ben1283 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree entirely. That's like saying that if we include an article on The Beatles, we have to include an article on my old band because they are both defunct four-piece rock bands. If one or more of the conferences has something notable about it, e.g. a team that consistently wins state championships, a lot of notable alumni, a controversy or scandal, etc., then it might make sense to keep it. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, I agree with you if there are special circumstances. Say a conference had a big scandal or something, or a community happens to groom many notable athletics like Donora, Pennsylvania. However, comparing the Beatles and my old band doesn't paint what's going on here. These conferences are part of the Ohio High School Athletics system. The Beatles and my old band aren't connected that way. So I fail to see your analogy there. But I do agree with your point about special circumstances. --UWMSports (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 1

  • Keep - the nominator linked to just a deletion log, which doesn't tell me anything on why high school athletic conferences shouldn't be notable, just that one person deleted an article on them. I'm a direct contradiction to the idea that no one has looked up high school athletics conferences on Wikipedia as I have, and I've made edits to them. I think that if high schools are notable, as consensus consistently proves, the organizations that bind them together therefore have to be notable as well. matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I gave you precedent where High School Athletic conferences were deemed non-notable. Now find something that says otherwise. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Frankly, one admin's opinion; who isn't even active anymore. Isn't much of s precedent in the first place. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Doesn't matter if he's not active. That was the precedent. Doesn't the Supreme Court make most of their decisions based on precedent? That is even if the Supreme Court justice that started the precedent is long dead. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia policy frowns upon precedents. The merits of the specific conferences that were deleted are not up for discussion, only the conferences in this nomination (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) <Baseballfan789 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    You're right; it doesn't matter if they're not active. Either way; with no guidelines or discussions prior or after that isolated incident I don't see why one deletion should hold any ground. I'm sure the Supreme Court talks about things before doing them; I saw no discussion for that article. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    So if you find one that works in your favor I would expect you to have the same skeptical view and say it was just another isolated incident that happened to find HS conferences notable. Come on StepShep, you'd be flaunting it like crazy. I have some precedent, you guys do not. I'm just asking you to be fair and acknowledge it as I would acknowledge any findings in your favor. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I stopped looking, so don't worry about that. I'm just stating that one incident cannot set a precedent for the deletion of around 255 articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW, Stepshep is basically correct. While precedent is informative, it is not binding on Wikipedia. The fact that the other article was considered non-notable is worth bringing up, but it's just one point among many. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it should make or break this, but it is something that cannot be totally dismissed as Step, etc are trying to do. Like I said if something was found that pointed the other direction they'd be using it like crazy. The Supreme Court does talk about things before voting obviously. But if there is precedent it is very rare that they will change things. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    (reset indent)
    Fair 'nuff, although I have to point out that SCOTUS's procedures are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's procedures :) SCOTUS precedent is considered binding, lower courts are expected to abide by it, and later SCOTUS members are very reluctant to overturn past precedent and err on the side of sticking to it. Wikipedia precedent is not considered binding, nobody is expected to abide by it unless it becomes an official policy, and it is standard operating procedure for new consensus to overturn previous precedence. So I don't think your SCOTUS analogy makes any sense here :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    One admin's decision, if not based on any discussion, is hardly a good enough precedent. If you can find an actual debated policy that says it's not notable, that's a different matter entirely, but I don't accept a unilateral deletion log as a precedent. matt91486 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course you don't, so I would expect you not to accept anything that you find that goes the other way. Be objective and acknowledge its existence. Then find a reason as to why it shouldn't stick. Just saying it isn't acceptable isn't a reason to dismiss it. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am finding a reason why, as I said in my argument earlier. I'm saying decisions are supposed to be made by a consensus, and there wasn't one made there. That's why I find it invalid. This discussion is working towards a consensus which can actually serve as a precedent. See: Wikipedia:Consensus. matt91486 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, I do know what a consensus is, hence why I brought this to a discussion and not a straight out deletion request. Goodluck in your search! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "precedent" cited refers to an ambiguous action of one editor; deleting on that basis would be ludicrous. The assertion of redundancy also seems unreasonable to me -- the league is merely named in a list, so the only redundant bit of info is that the league exists. Currently, the article says a lot more than "the Pioneer Conference exists" -- and there's still room for expansion. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The list is pretty much the same as whats in the articles with the exception of two or three of the conferences. And I'm not saying delete based on that precedent, but it should be a pretty hard nugget to get by. I'm still waiting for a reason as to why high school conferences ARE notable. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Currently 21 of the 40 articles nominated, or 53%, have more info than a list of members. That is much more than the "two or three" that you bring up. Ben1283 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge all into a greatly expanded Ohio High School Athletic Conferences article. Individually they are no more notable than state organizations within a larger organization. Even if on paper they are separate they are de facto equivalent to regions of a statewide athletic conference. To facilitate the merge, keep the history, redirect all, and full-protect the redirects for 30 days to prevent edit-warring or innocent reverts by people unaware of the AfD. Leave the talk pages alone. If any of these are notable in their own right, say, by being the subject of a book, then an article about that particular conference can be re-created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedurally Relist by state: Conferences that include more than one state should be relisted individually. My vote will be to merge all in any given state together and keep those crossing state lines as they don't have an obvious merge target. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) updated again, see comment below with this timestamp. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment- David, which conferences are in multiple states. From what I understand high school conferences stay within the state and compete against each other for State Championships and what not. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Just through glancing at the article's images I can say for sure Ohio Valley Athletic Conference is in two states; there are possibly others. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Conference affiliation has little bearing on state championships, so it's not surprising there are conferences with schools in multiple states. Even for those entirely in-state, conference members can compete in different OHSAA size divisions. For example, the Portage Trail Conference, in theory, could have five state champions in football in one season because its 16 members play in Ohio's Divisions II, III, IV, V, and VI. In other words, winning the conference division does not determine who gets into the state playoffs and conferences are not all exclusively one size division, though they are usually schools close in size. This is where high school conferences are different from collegiate ones, again, adding to their notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment This action implies that all the articles here are simply lists of conference members and sports they sponsor, when it has already been pointed out that some of the articles have documented histories and unique conference rules in their individual articles and can already stand on their own. No need to do a mass merge for articles that don't need it just to satisfy some people who feel they aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, plus the main list already exists. They are either notable enough to warrant an individual article or they aren't. Why make extra work when we don't need to?
As for high school conferences being notable, why are college conferences notable? Because they're on TV? Because they have a website? In essence, high school conferences, at least in Ohio, function very similarly to collegiate conferences. While they are certainly not as notable as a collegiate conference, that doesn't mean they are not notable at all, especially in light of the articles on high schools, which make mention of the school's conference affiliation. If the high school is notable enough to have its own article, why isn't the conference it is a part of notable enough? I have already mentioned how conferences in Ohio are different than in some other states (which don't use conferences) and how a given conference can have it's own specific rules, history, and structure; things that are notable even if it is lower. A simple list cuts out a lot of information. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused to as why the Cincinnati league within this list of conferences was deemed non-notable then. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Same here; and so is Jimbo from the sound of it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is Jimbo? hahahahaha --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum to proposal to relist - Only those which are stubs OR which do not clearly list a particular reason for notability beyond "This is an Ohio athletic conference, ergo it is notable" should be relisted or merged. Non-stubs that do list a reason should be left alone. Non-stubs that do not clearly list a reason should be tagged and worked on. Stubs which do not list a reason should be merged. Stubs that do list a reason should be expanded. In any case, the bottom line is: Do not delete until after relisting, and only delete those which are mere stubs which do not make a claim of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The conference whose addition to AFD brought me here, Portage County League, contains a great deal more information, concerning both the definition of the league and its history, than the article cited as making the individual conference pages redundant. This detailed information would not be appropriate for the state-wide list, but is definitely important and encyclopedic to those seeking information on the league. So I vote to keep them all, as encyclopedic information will be lost from Wikipedia which cannot be appropriately merged into other existing articles. Although some articles are sparse at this time, they will likely be expanded in the future. --Dan East (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Let's keep Wikipedia great and focus energy on more important matters.EagleFan (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - That's not a reason, EagleFan. The truth is a conference from this Ohio system was already deemed not-notable two years ago. A page that was much like most of the pages in the collection. And to be frank, if we're going to focus energy on more important matters, we should probably ask ourselves why are we Wikipedia addicts! Haha. --UWMSports (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please prove that the article which was deleted was similar to these articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ohio_High_School_Athletic_Conferences#Cincinnati_Hills_League; "and the crowd goes wild!" :) --UWMSports (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    That wasn't my point. How do you know that is what was in the original article? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think Shep's point was that while you can show that an article called Cincinnati Hills League was deleted, you don't know what the content of that article was. For all we know, it was a one-sentence stub that said, "The Cincinnati Hills League is an Ohio high school sports conference." Without being an admin, none of us can know what the content of the article was.
    In any case, this is all terribly irrelevant and tedious. One article about this topic was speedy-deleted by one admin (no AfD, so no consensus) a few years ago. It was worth pointing out, but it hardly means much of anything in terms of an AfD discussion taking place in 2008. Way too much has been made of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Completely agreed. We're in a weird situation acting without any consensus based precedent here, and we can't give too much value to what might have been a routine deletion of a nonsense article by an inactive admin we unfortunately can't ask about the process for it. In my opinion, these conferences should be notable because they mirror college conferences, which are unquestionably notable, serve as major organizations in local communities, group and govern high schools, which are also consistently found to be notable, and can have independent histories of team movement, etc. compiled for them with sourcing, primarily from newspapers. Those things together confer notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    But they are NOT college conferences. It doesn't matter if they model their structure after colleges, the truth is they are still high schools!!! --UWMSports (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I never said they were college conferences, just that they function in the same way. High schools are still notable on Wikipedia, so the organizations which supersede them should be similarly notable. matt91486 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    They may be notable to you, but they have never been deemed notable yet on Wikipedia. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    ...And equally have they not been deemed un-notable yet. This is the first debate on the matter. We keep going around in circles. I keep trying to point out reasons why I think they meet notability and will have sourcing, and no one is willing to actually discuss the points with me. I'm trying to actually build up a consensus on this, but it keeps coming back to referencing the one speedy deletion several years ago with no debate as a counter to whatever I say. I'm just asking for some actual discussion. matt91486 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It isn't equal, I think we're just annoyed that those who want keep won't acknowledge that. I'm all for discussion, but lets all be fair about it. All I've really heard is WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, and it's WP:USEFUL. --UWMSports (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Matt is right. He, UWMSports, and GoHuskies have all made their points, and I don't see any new arguments at all from these three users. Let's see where consensus takes us. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 2

  • Deleted article The contents of the deleted article Cincinnati Hills League is available here for your convenience. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Looks like a lot of the present articles; not all, but a lot of them. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reply I sadly have to agree it does look like a few of them. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for tracking it down. I'm wondering what criteria of speedy deletion it was under. It's too bad we can't ask the deleting admin what his/her rationale was. I'm still in favor of keep, since this deletion wasn't made by consensus, but it is certainly more useful to know what the article says. matt91486 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    (EC) Comment With all due respect to the deleting admin I would have argued that that article should not have been speedied, that it deserved at least a shot at AFD. I don't see it as an A7 which seems to be the criteria used. (Although I'm not sure if the guidelines were the same at that time.)--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    It does look like some of the conference articles, but not all, particularly ones like Northeast Ohio Conference and Portage Trail Conference (and probably more). I think that article should've been debated as well...in my opinion an opportunity should have been provided to prove notability. Even with this, I hardly think it serves as a precedent to delete all Ohio high school conference articles. And yes, these arguments are going in circles. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that I see the "precedent" that Huskies was talking about. The article that he believed set a precedent was just a list of the schools in the league. As Ben1283 correctly points out, more than half of the articles in the nomination have more information than the list of schools. NewYork483 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    TIME OUT!!! -- Can someone explain why high school conferences are notable? UWM provided three good links with the likeit, pretty, useful, etc. What broad sports encyclopedia have you read that includes high school conferences? You'd need a specialized encyclopedia if there is anything that provides high school info. Now with that said, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia! It should be broad and not overly specialized. Like WP:USEFUL says, there are many things that are useful and good to know, but not encyclopedia worthy. I'm failing to see where high school conferences are encyclopedia worthy. Either you live in Ohio and have a kid in a conference and know the system, or you're an outsider who will never look up high school conferences in Ohio or anywhere else. It's that simple. --FancyMustard (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Several comments have been made to show why Ohio athletic conferences are unique and notable, even if they are not very high on notablilty. I suggest you go read this log and see what points have been made. Again, I think people are assuming notability equals high notability. But consider the definition of notability: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." There are TONS of articles on Wikipedia of places, people, things, and events that have passed the test of notability that are NOT in published encyclopedias. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment on encyclopedic nature of high school sports conferences: Some are "notable in their own right" due to specific events involving the conferences. For example, high school sports conferences that were subjects of seminal desegregation cases or which consistently produce star athletes out of proportion to their member schools enrollment. Others are "wikinotable" because they cover so many schools that to leave them out would be a disgrace. For example, if there were a single governing body for high school sports in a country with as many high school athletes as the United States, such a body would clearly deserve at least a stub. As for state- and sub-state-level conferences in the United States, they probably all technically meet WP:N only because they receive significant coverage in the high school sports pages. Every time those conferences or their governing bodies make a major decision, it's reported in sports pages throughout the region or state, trivially meeting WP:N. However, just as we don't include every neighborhood non-nationally-affiliated youth sports association even though it receives significant coverage in the local paper every year, we don't necessarily include regional or state-level high school athletic conferences. Instead, we write articles or leave the articles unwritten and, on occasions like this one, nominate articles for deletion. The consensus, either "not notable"/"nobody cares" by virtue of nobody writing the article, "notable" by lack of a PROD or AfD, or notable or not notable or no consensus by the results of the AfD, shape and reshape where to draw the line. Remember, consensus can change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment David does bring up a good point, as high school sports do get a good chunk of attention in local papers. After the national stuff, local stuff generally follows in the average sports section. That's a good reason for keep. But the current state of the articles are really bad, with the exception of a few. If the consensus ends up being keep, if anyone wants to work with me with coming up with a uniform format for these pages. Obviously some will be longer than others. But a general blue print for each page (i.e. Infobox, maps, how to break the article into sections, etc.). And time must be given too, because I've seen articles brought back to AfDs quick, and because the people involved are different consensus changes. It stinks! --FancyMustard (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentThis sounds like a good task for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ohio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:LOCALFAME A subject that is notable only locally does not necessarily fail WP:N. These conferences (at least the ones around my home town of Cleveland) are coveed in the newspapers a nd on local media a lot. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this argument. Local papers also post obituaries of local citizens as well. Does getting in the newspaper make these people notable? No! --UWMSports (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
These days big-city papers treat obituaries as classified ads. They'll print a small "death notice" without a photo as a public service, anything more that isn't a "news obit" is a paid ad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes because the person in the obituary has no notability, local or otherwise, the conferences all have local notability. read the policy before making outlandish statements like you just did. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOCALFAME is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it to be Frank. Something like Old Man of the Mountain qualifies under your interpretation of localfame because it is known to EVERYONE within New Hampshire. You go to New York, they probably don't know about it. But high school conferences don't qualify under your definition of local fame. Unlike the Old Man of the Mountain, I'm sure only a low% of Ohioians know what the high school conference lines are. Does this make sense to you? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that high school conferences receive extensive coverage most of the year, from conference previews for each sport, to online discussion forums, and general reporting of scores...so not the same as a one or two-time obituary notice. As for the suggestions for this to be part of Wikiproject Ohio, and the formation of a basic layout, I think those are great ideas. I did some of the layout for the Portage Trail Conference article and based it loosely on what I found on the collegiate conference articles (using a chart for member schools, for example), though the PTC article is far from a perfect model to be used. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Being an Ohioan I can say that more than a low % of Ohioans know the High School Conference lines. Obituaries are firrerent. The have to follow Biography criteria. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
UWM, low profile obits are generally written by the family and sent to the newspaper to inform locals in the community that someone they may know has died. The newspaper does this as a favor to the family to get the word out and possibly save them the time of making hundreds of phone calls. With high school sports, the newspaper sends their people out to the events. This is to enhance their paper. Big difference here. They aren't going to report John from the supermarket died unless the paper is notified by the family, they will report on the high school sports whether or not someone from the game calls them to come.--FancyMustard (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mustard, two girls from my community died in a car crash recently and the article made the first few pages. Those girls weren't notable! --UWMSports (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because the crash is newsworthy. Like your local news begins with two killed in local robbery. Those people weren't necessarly notable, but the way they died was notable and thus newsworthy. Grandpa dying in his sleep doesn't make the front page. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough Mustard, but there are lots of things that make local papers because it is a specialized local newspaper. They are not going to report much national stuff because the reader can buy the New York Times or something like that instead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is very broad. I think people fail to realize that and unfortunately many unecessary articles get through. It's a lot of work that no one will search for. Huskies made a good point about local fame! --UWMSports (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) But again, these instances of noteworthy items in a newspaper may be in for one or two days and then the item isn't covered anymore. This is not the same as a high school conference which is covered in multiple newspapers on an almost year-round basis. And as I've said before, why are the high schools notable, but an organization which is formed by those notable high schools (yes, Ohio conferences are formed by their respective member schools) is not? Keep in mind, the only reason that collegiate conferences have achieved high notability is because of the high notability of their members. Ohio State isn't notable because of the Big Ten; no, the Big Ten is notable because it contains Ohio State and other notable schools like Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, etc.--JonRidinger (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A high school in the middle of Ohio cannot be compared to a mega-large institution like Ohio State in the collegiate Big Ten. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point...it's not about comparing Ohio State to some high school...it's comparing reasons for why something is considered notable and why it isn't. I was trying to connect the notability of high schools (already established) with notability of their respective conferences since it is the high schools themselves that get together and form a conference, just like in college. If nothing else, high school conferences are notable because they contain and are formed by notable institutions, just like collegiate conferences have achieved notabilty based on the notability of their membership. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, it's pretty clear from previous deletion discussions that public high school articles won't be deleted merely from lack of notability. We are talking about sports conferences, which are organizations consisting of many high schools but, unlike school districts, may or may not be taxpayer-funded, may or may not have elected officials running the show, and which may or may not provide direct services to students or the general public. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would venture to say that none of the high school athletic conferences are supported directly by taxpayers, any more than a college conference is directly funded publicly. They function on membership dues, which is an indirect public payment since it is coming from the school (if the school is public, of course). From what I've read as well, the leadership of a given high school conference is usually made up of the principals of the member schools who may or may not hire a separate head or they rotate who is in charge amongst themselves.--JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep all - there is an important history laid out here. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Where is the important history? --UWMSports (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Some of the articles have histories of the conferences which couldnt exactly be placed in the conference list. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    So lets compromise with this, merge/delete stub articles (ones that mirror the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article) into main list and keep any conference that has a notable history. A notable history, not simply Conference A was created in 1955 by John Doe. Notable meaning they have a history of generating pro-athletes, have had a notable scandal, or something else of that nature. After looking at the list, not all conferences have their own page anyway, so this is not an all or nothing case. --UWMSports (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree...this is definitely not an all or nothing case even though this deletion debate has made it such by including so many articles. I wouldn't be against deleting articles that are simply duplicates of the main list of conferences in Ohio (what's the point of two lists?), but I think they should first be tagged for a time as stubs as part of Wikiprojects Ohio, Schools, and Sports so they are given at least some chance to be expanded as part of a project. Perhaps they haven't been expanded because not enough people are aware of the article's existence in the first place. This needs to be a case-by-case basis. As for notabilty, there are varying degrees here, so again it is a case-by-case basis. As I have pointed out before, having all of their members (the high schools) be notable , even low notability, still gives the conference some level of notability even if it's just because of who is in it. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin This is obviously going to be a Keep or a nearly-keep No consensus. There doesn't appear to be a consensus for individual articles. I recommend you mention that in your closing remarks, so as not to prejudice any individual-article AfD that may come up in the near future. I suspect those who care about these articles are watchlisting them and will speak up in any future AfD. However, the results of this seemingly all-or-nothing AfD should not prejudice future actions about individual articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 3

  • Comment - My advice to the closing admin is that we make things very specific. Things need to be specific like keep such and such articles but merge/delete so and so articles. Unless the admin firmly believes in a full keep, then it is better to be specific to keep all of these articles from coming back individually. It would waste a lot of time going that route. A no consensus would be no good. In that event, I suggest the AfD stay open and several notable admins be notified of the AfD. It's too big to leave the possibility of these articles coming back here. --UWMSports (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • THREE BITS OF PRECEDENT FOR DELETION STRAIGHT FROM OHIO CONFERENCE LIST
  • 1.) Cincinnati Hills League
  • 2.) Greater Miami Conference
  • 3.) Suburban League
Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference
To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3
  • Comment - Greater Miami Conference was another conference deleted by an admin from the main list two years ago. Two bits of precedent provided now. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reply That article was closed via a WP:PROD which states: the article will be deleted about 5 days later [after the notice is palced] if nobody objects. For all that is known no one even saw the article for those 5 days and it was deleted without anyone knowing any better. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sure somebody saw it considering this discussion has been recognized by a good number of people. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    See Suburban League; Three bits of precedent now. Your move. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a very recent discussion and that article was deleted in 2006. And this isn't chess or a game; it's not about moves but rather trying to gather consensus on notability. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And the editor requested that their page be deleted One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. That's not a precedent if it was done by the author. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Step is correct...those were both single articles. If you read the description for Suburban League, you'll note an author requested to have the page deleted. This AfD included a large amount of articles (not just one), several of which have large amounts of information on them and multiple editors (meaning more people are probably watching the pages). If JUST the Pioneer Conference article had been listed, I wouldn't have even known as is likely the case for a lot of other editors. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    You guys are fighting a lost cause. I don't see how you can keep ignoring the evidence that those in favor of deletion have set forward. There are three examples of high school conferences being deemed non-notable. Find something to the contrary. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From Illinois- Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference
  • From Wisconsin- Six Rivers Conference --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • BurpTheBaby has listed 3 prods, one article where the author requested deletion, and one where there was not enough context to identify the subject. The userreq has nothing to do with notability, the A1 was due to poor authorship, and the 3 prods we know nothing about except that they went uncontested. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Prods that exceeded 5 days are listed differently. I think one of them demonstrate that. So six pieces of evidence, take away the prod+5days, equals five pieces of evidence to ZERO. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • FURTHER COMMENT and summary of BurpTheBaby's examples: All but one appear to be either PROD or SPEEDY. The first one in the list has no easy-to-find AfD record. Here are the deletion logs:
Cincinnati Hills League - 3 November 2006 "high school athletic conferences are not notable" No AfD record found
Greater Miami Conference - 5 July 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD
Suburban League 6 March 2008 "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" SPEEDY
Interstate Eight Conference - 1st deletion - 15 April 2008 "A1: Not enough context to identify subject" SPEEDY
Interstate Eight Conference - 2nd deletion - 25 April 2008 "CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context" SPEEDY
Sangamo Conference - 3 November 2006 "{{prod}} > 5 days" - Uncontested PROD
Six Rivers Conference - 26 May 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD
As you can see, at most 1, and possibly 0, of these are relevant as precedent.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is your evidence to negate these? You can't just ignore them. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
They only have value as precedent if there was an AfD or similar discussion that ended with a consensus. I'm pointing out for all to see that of the 7 deletions, 6 or 7 of them have no value as precedent, and the value of the first one, if any, is hidden from view and therefore useless here until the relevant discussion surfaces. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the admin that deleted some of those articles agreed with the prod. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, there was no discussion. Also, it's not necessary that the admin "agree" with the prod, only that the admin not disagree. I expect most admins are neutral when it comes to housekeeping tasks like deleting expired prods. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Time Out Guys - Lets all take a deep breath here and get back to the issues. Lets stop attacking each other. Baby, Frank relax... --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good edit David, can you agree to that Baby and Frank? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If this keeps up I'm going to ask an admin to either PP this page for 1 hour and/or look at the debate to see if it can be closed or if further discussion is likely to be useful. The 5-day minimum period has already passed, but I would expect admins to leave it open until it looks like further discussion won't provide any more benefit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think its probably getting to the point where you could do that anyway. It just seems to be the same users talking in circles. Maybe give it a day for others to chime in about Baby's links, but other than that, I'm looking forward to seeing this wrapped up too. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In regards to the successful proposed deletions, I can say that if I had checked the prods at that time, I would have contested them and removed the tags. I'm sure the other people voting keep would have as well. All it takes is one contesting and then they would not have been prodded, so I don't think we can base too much off that since there isn't a set policy on them yet. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    They are deletions in any event. The closing admin wouldn't delete if he/she didn't feel it was legitimate. If I place a prod tag on George Washington and its ignored for 5 days, do you really think anyone is going to delete it? I think some conferences should stay if they have a rich history, but the rest of the individual pages which are basically lists anyway can be merged into the main list. --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    PRODded deletions can be restored through deletion review. From what I've seen, such requests are routinely granted, on the logic that "if the requester had seen the PROD in time, it would never have been deleted." It would be ironic if this AfD failed and next week those 3 PRODded articles got restored just because someone asked for them to be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 4 - Summary/Poll

  • Not a poll, more of a summary.
In a previous edit I called this a poll. I've restored it along with the responses to date. AfD is not a vote, but I'd like to see how people stand all in a single location, rather than spread out as above. Put your name below the statement that best describes your feelings on this. Many people will not see this non-poll - the closing admin will have to look here as well as above when making his decition.
  • explicitly keep all, all clearly meet the criteria for keep
  • explicitly keep some as some clearly meet the criteria for keep, rest can be dealt with later
  • explicitly keep some that clearly meet the criteria for keep and explicitly delete some that clearly meet the criteria for delete
  • explicitly delete some which are worthy of deletion but no opinion on the rest
  • explicitly delete all as all are worthy of deletion
  • none of the above
  • your name here

The above is not a vote

Just remember when you say the rest can be dealt with later, you will probably see an agonizingly long AfD here again. Why don't we just deal with them all, even if some are keep and some are delete or merge. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point, I'm sure there's other things we can be doing in the middle of the night. --FancyMustard (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Smartest thing said yet here. Haha! --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
GoHuskies9904, for those articles which have consensus, then by all means let's mark them done. But if no individual article has a consensus, then it's unfair to that article to mark it "consensus: delete" or "consensus: keep." With the exception of stubbish articles, I haven't seen much discussion about individual articles. Frankly, I expect most of these that survive this AfD to come up again individually within the next few weeks or months. Those that are rightly marked by the closing admin as "consensus: keep" will have a better shot at surviving future AfDs than those that don't yet have consensus, which I think is most of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it does any good to bring each and every article back to an AfD. They are all basically the same; a list of schools and sports within the conference. Why should time be wasted on bringing those back individually? It's easy to just delete them and have them on the central list. What you guys want to do with those unique conferences with history and what not is up to closing admin. --UWMSports (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Per what I said Way up at the top of the AfD probably a week ago, I believe a Keep All is in order. I think those that are currently stubs should be tagged as such and others with notability/reliable sources concerns should be appropriately tagged. I like the idea by davidwr about informing those involved with WikiProject Ohio as they could help expand those stub-level conferences. After at least a month or two, if nothing is done about them, then maybe redirect those specific conferences to the conference list. Maybe this opinion also supports "keep some, we will deal with the rest later," but I believe all should be kept, at least for now. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I also like the suggestion (as I have already mentioned) of including articles within various related Wikiprojects and seeing if anything can be made from them, at least for a time. If not (i.e. the article is just a duplicate list) then delete it for redundancy. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 5 - non poll discussion continues

  • Delete all: Totally unnotable conferences, much like most school listings. Why there cannot be a compact, brief description on one page, or perhaps off-wiki, amazes me. seicer | talk | contribs 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, over half of those nominated have more than school listings Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Only a few have more than a list of schools and a list of sports though. I don't think listing every sport makes the article better. It is pretty much common knowledge what sports a high school plays. Maybe one includes boys volleyball or something. That's the only curve ball you're going to get there. --UWMSports (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 5 didn't get a lot of love, haha. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No I guess not Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 6: Breakdown of the nominated articles

Articles that should immediately be deleted-REVISED LIST
This is because all of the following pages are nothing more than a list of schools already found on the central list and look like the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article that is from the same list of schools:
1-Blanchard Valley Conference
2-Buckeye Border Conference
3-Central Buckeye Conference
4-Cincinnati Metro Athletic Conference
5-Firelands Conference
6-Great Lakes League
7-Greater Buckeye Conference
8-Greater Catholic League
9-Greater Western Ohio Conference
10-Green Meadows Conference
11-Lakeshore Conference (OHSAA)
12-Midwest Athletic Conference
13-Northeast Ohio Conference
14-Northern Ohio League
15-Northwest Central Conference
16-Northwest Conference (Iowa)
17-Northwest Conference (OHSAA)
18-Northwest Ohio Athletic League
19-Ohio Cardinal Conference
20-Pac 7 (OHSAA)
21-Patriot Athletic Conference
22-Pioneer Conference
23-Putnam County League
24-Southwestern Conference (Ohio)
25-Toledo Area Athletic Conference
26-Wayne County Athletic League
27-West Shore Conference

The following articles have the beginnings or a lengthy history and other valuable items within the article. These articles should be decided upon individually.
1-East Central Ohio League
2-Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League

3-Midland Athletic League
4-North Central Conference (OHSAA)
5-North Coast League
6-Northern Lakes League
7-Ohio Valley Athletic Conference
8-Portage Trail Conference
9-Sandusky Bay Conference
10-Southern Ohio Conference
11-Suburban Lakes League
12-Toledo City League
13-Western Buckeye League


Clearly Frank Anchor's claim that over half of the articles have more than just a high school listing is not true. 70% of these articles should be immediately deleted. --UWMSports (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Side note:Northeast Ohio Conference does include a very brief history and its list is more than just a list of members: each division is different in each sport, something that is very unique in any athletic conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's still just a list. No history there. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of it is a list, yes, but not all of it is, plus those lists wouldn't be included in the master list of Ohio athletic conferences. That list would simply contain a list of the members. The breakdown of each division by sport is unique enough (and does contain an explanation) to constitute an article, even if it is a stub or of low notability. It also does have the very basic beginnings of a history in that it mentions when it was formed and where the schools came from. It could definitely use an expansion, but that doesn't mean it's just a list like some of the other articles listed. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I found this breakdown very informative. I see 10 articles of good quality on the athletic conferences. And I see the other 30 as articles that with work could be made to look like the good 10. No need to delete because they haven't reached their potential at this moment in time.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You have the following conferences in the inaccurate list. The following also have valuable items that could not be easily added to the list:

  1. Blanchard Valley Conference (Lengthy introduction, list of enrollments)
  2. Greater Catholic League (Lengthy intro, mention of numerous All-Ohio and All-American athletes)
  3. Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League (List of champions, lengthy informative intro)
  4. North Coast League (History section recently added, possibly after you compiled this list)
  5. Northeast Ohio Conference (Notable in its own way in that the divisions differ by sport, and history section as to how it was the merger of the former Pioneer and Western Reserve Conferences
  6. Patriot Athletic Conference (Many notable lists of champions)

That makes <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pioneer_Conference&action=edit&section=9 Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias>16 15, not 10 as you say, conferences that differ significantly from the deleted Cincinnati Hills League. Ben1283 showed and NewYork483 seconded that 53% had more info than a simple school list - a claim which i went by. Perhaps they also included leagues with just lists for schools and sports. I still maintain that all articles should be kept per my previous comments. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

List of enrollments can be found on each high school's page. List of sports is common knowledge. And breakdown into divisions can be done on main list as demonstrated already. Championships can be incorporated into high school page under their athletic section. And the 10 that I put aside aren't necessarily good. There is a big, big gap between East Central Ohio League and Portage Trail Conference. Those ten I simply left up to individual review. --UWMSports (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that enrollments may be a stretch, but championships should be on school pages in addition to conference pages. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, only the school's individual enrollment will be found on their page, not the enrollments of the other schools, so comparing one school to another in its conference won't be easy. As for sports...while the time of each sport is the same (Fall, Winter, Spring), what sports are offered by a particular conference varies. I guess one of the notable things about the conferences to me is how each school fits in and it can provide further perspective about a school's athletic program when it is compared to the other ones it competes with. And since each member is notable... --JonRidinger (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep only those 15 articles that Burp the Baby and Frank Anchor listed as different from the Cincinnati Hills League article that was deleted. I believe these articles to have substantial info that can not be covered on the list. Redirect all others to the conference list. Scooter3230 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Delete the 28, weak keep the other 12 for now is a good compromise for this AfD. I would still vote delete for the other 12 if asked today, but we can give a little time for them to be turned into good articles before re-nominating them separately down the road. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This may sound like a comprimise, but i'd suggest it's not in line with policy. Deletions are based on the topic and (with the exceptions of copy vio or severe blp issues) not on the current state of the article. If the 12 can be expanded why do we think the other 28 can not be?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Because Cincinnati Hills League was a separate page from this list that was deleted 2 years ago. All of the 28 that UWM provided seem to mirror that page. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought that had already been discussed. Speedy delete, not consensus at afd. Interpretation of A7 that could be argued.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ohh and 2 years ago, consensus can change even if there was consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There are now SIX examples of high school conferences being deleted. Prods can be contested, but they weren't. And even if they go past the 5 day limit, the deleting admin has to ask themselves is this article really worthy of being deleted. Airtuna said it above, if someone puts a prod on George Washington and its ignored for 5 days, do you really think an admin is going to delete it? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that compromise too. A list is sufficient enough for those 28 conferences. Those opposed should realize it really isn't deleting the material, its still on Wikipedia. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's awfully difficult to expand the articles to make them more complete and thorough if they no longer have pages from which to expand. There must be no prejudice toward recreation to any article deleted should it be turned into a complete, encyclopedic article. I still maintain that articles are totally valid as stubs. matt91486 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, many of the articles in the 'immediate deletion' section have more than just team lists. The Pioneer Conference article lists former members, which would not be present in the main list. The Ohio Valley Conference has teams from West Virginia, which equally would not be covered in the main list. Merger processes would be incomplete at best. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, keep the Ohio Valley Conference. It's unique that a high school athletic conference include two states. Matty, can you do a little research on that conference to find out if its privately run or which state runs it? I can't imagine its champions would be recognized in a state championship setting. As far as the stubs, they shouldn't be kept as is because as they read its just duplicate information you can find on the master list. --FancyMustard (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the multi-state conferences, I don't think one state would run it. Each school adopts the rules of its conference and of the state governing athletic board, so a team winning a particular conference would only have a partial effect on their qualifying for the state's playoffs (which isn't assured by their winning the conference title like in college). In other words, it is possible for a conference like the OVAC to have state champions in both states depending on which state the school plays in (Ohio teams go to OHSAA playoffs, WV teams go to WVHSAA playoffs), just like a conference with teams in multiple size divisions can theoretically have multiple teams win the state championship from the same conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The OVAC should be kept specifically because it covers both Ohio and W. Virginia and wouldn't exactly fit into a list of high school athletics conferences in Ohio NewYork483 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(Reset Indent)
The Northeast Ohio Conference page needs to be kept as well. The fact that it uses different divisional alignments for its different sports is notable in itself and could not be copied into the conferences list. I believe that and the 12 that Huskies UWM marked as having valuable information that could not simply be put on the list. I also believe the other articles should be redirected to the conference list, not deleted. That way someone searching for one of the conferences would find the list of conferences, and not a blank page. it would also preserve the histories of the articles. Ben1283 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on both points NewYork483 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some minor expansions on the Northeast Ohio Conference page Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree on the Northeast Ohio Conference. That material can be copied over to the main list. I'm sure there are conferences all over the country that don't line up exactly sport for sport. This is nothing uncommon. As for the Ohio Valley, since its in two states, keep it. The list has been updated for me I guess. --UWMSports (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
sidenote It may not be completely unique, but it is certainly noteworthy. I have never seen a high school conference that has a setup like that at least in Ohio or elsewhere (again, many states do not use athletic conferences the way Ohio does), so I wouldn't say it's "nothing uncommon" until you can present some references to "conferences all over the country" that have that particular setup. The only thing close I have seen is in instances where some members don't offer a particular sport, so the divisions either are aligned differently or disappear all together. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not unusual for this to happen. All depends on school size, funding, interest, etc. Not notable enough to have its own page, merge the divisions to the central list. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to the comment way above me (this discussion moves fast when you're not home), I'll do my best to look into the Ohio/West Virginia conference some; however, I'm taking the GRE on Wednesday, and that's going to occupy most of my time until after that. I'll quick glance around though, and if this discussion is still open Wednesday evening, I'll look into it some more. matt91486 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's not even all that apparent from the nomination just what it is the nominator proposes be deleted. Portage Trail Conference should certainly remain; it's a sourced article with a reasonably lengthy edit history, and on the basis of this article alone I would suggest that this AfD be defeated. Perhaps after this matter is closed, other AfD's can be started for the weaker articles, but on an "all or nothing" vote I would say keep all. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jeff, no worries, Portage is on the list of 13 that will get a closer look. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in point of fact I am... not worried, per se, but concerned. With all due respect, this is a rather poor nomination to AfD, akin to subjecting Cleveland, Ohio and Center of the World, Ohio to the same AfD process simply because both happen to be places in Ohio. It appears that this AfD was originally about one article, but in an attempt to blunt arguments from WP:OSE every other like article got thrown in the mix. This is a deletionist's dream, and as one who tends toward inclusionism I don't like how the process is being abused in this case to try to delete a number of articles en masse. I believe AfD should evaluate each article on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not be used for a deletionist agenda any more than "other crap exists" should be used for an inclusionist agenda. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 7: The Return of the Jedi

  • Suggest closing now with no prejudice to nominating individually, or in small closely related groups of the same merits. It's gotten pretty clear this can't be discussed this fashion, with people defending a particular article. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - It can be discussed here and decided which articles stay and which go. While this discussion has been long, it will be alot shorter than seeing each article come here individually. It will never go away then. --UWMSports (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I agree with DGG, we are getting nowhere fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Baseball

[edit] Brad Chalk

Brad Chalk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Satisfies WP:ATHLETE, which I haven't looked at in awhile. That criteria has been reduced from "major" league professional to those "who have competed in a fully professional league". The Fort Wayne Wizards are a professional team, so the guideline criterion is satisfied, so long as verifiable sources are added to the article. Truthanado (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. While Single-A ball doesn't meet my definition of a "fully professional league" (pay is so low that it's less than minumum wage), this article says he was an All-American in college, so there will undoubtedly be lots written about him.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the world of baseball, players such as Ryan Howard and David Wright make sudden jumps from being minor league scrubs to major league stars. You never know what could happen, so let's keep this here and see how his career plays out. Uncheelsrok (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Brownell

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Katie Brownell Articles for deletion/Katie Brownell (2nd nomination)
Katie Brownell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a biography of child who received some press coverage for pitching a perfect game in Little League Baseball. This article represents a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. In first nomination (which was closed no consensus), the closing admin described the decision as "insane." I tried merging the article with 2005 in baseball, but my edit was reverted, leading me to request deletion again. BRMo (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the spirit of BLP:1E is to prevent articles on people known primarily for scandals. Zagalejo^^^ 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
BLP1E says, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." It is not applicable only to people known for scandals and is precisely applicable to cases such as this one. BRMo (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak KeepDelete. You have to seriously contort WP:ATHLETE to make it even come close to supporting the notability of this individual. Someone said in the previous AfD that she should fulfill the criteria because she is playing in the highest level of amateur competition available to her at her age. Sorry, but the notability requirements for athletes do not in any way make any such exceptions for this argument. Even if you somehow get around this obvious problem, you still have to deal with the fact that she also fails WP:BLP1E. This was a one-time thing, there are no sources that suggest that she any notability that extends outside one exceptional but otherwise unnoteworthy game. Trusilver 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Changed my position per discussion below. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been considering this one over and over for days now and though I had been somewhat swayed that this meets the spirit of the notability guidelines if not the exact wording of the policy, I keep being drawn back to WP:ATHLETE and the fact that this information is just better being consolidated with the article User:BRMo originally attempted to merge it to. Trusilver 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This shows a severe limitation in 1E - when the event is not as notable as the person becomes as a result of the event. In this case, we cannot cover the event in the way the spirit of the policy means. A congratulatory meeting with the President, and the placing of her jersey into the Baseball Hall of Fame put this beyond the normal "dog bites man" concerns that the policy is meant to address. The Hall of Fame thing is the real kicker for me, as this demonstrates ongoing notability. Jim Miller (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
comment - The article—all three sentences of it—deals with only one game and the recognition this girl received from it. It fits very nicely in 2005 in baseball, and BLP1E clearly recommends that such articles should be merged and shouldn't be stand-alone biographies. BRMo (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply Except that WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply since none of the references or the article in question are about the event. I can't even find a box score of the game. If there was WP:RS coverage of the game itself that met WP:N, and included trivial mentions of this subject, then WP:BLP1E would apply. If it really applied in this case, we would have the usual recommendations to merge/rename to the event. The policy is not designed to limit notability, but to maintain perspective of which is more notable - the event or the individual involved. In this case, the individual's notability has clearly surpassed that of the event. Jim Miller (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:IAR Which is also policy LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment While I agree with your "keep," I agree with others that IAR is a bankrupt argument in xfd discussions. Townlake (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of people who have had "meet and greets" with the president, very few of them are truly notable. Her jersey was part of a women in baseball exhibit at the hall of fame, she herself was not elected to the hall of fame.. She has done no other noteworthy things.. Kinston's original argument is even false.. little league baseball is not actually the highest level of competition for youth athletes.. the best young players play on all-star and tournament teams which are a much higher level of play than what is generally played in little league. We really should not set a precedent of placing little league baseball players in wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is well sourced, the girl is notable for a variety of reasons flowing from the "one event," and while I don't think she passes WP:ATHLETE, there are numerous reliable independent sources that have chronicled her noteworthy, unique achievement and the follow-up to it. Seems to me the steady stream of recognition she's achieved (particularly her jersey going into the Hall of Fame) takes this out of 1E territory - the independent coverage has not been marginal or cabined in a broader overall discussion. Townlake (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Well, you have just pretty much explained how she doesn't pass notability requirements. At what part of your argument do you explain how she does pass notability requirements? So far, all I have seen from the keeps are variations of WP:ILIKEIT as well as my favorite, WP:IAR (the last refuge of people trying to keep garbage articles). So far I have not yet seen a legitimate rationale for notability. Show me one and I would be inclined to reconsider my position. Trusilver 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Please assume good faith here - quoting WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." We have that, don't we? The only reason to delete would be 1E, but there's a list of unique traits and aftermath to this girl's accomplishment that to me get it past the marginalness indicated by 1E. (It's comparable to the Jason McElwain story in certain respects.) Reasonable people may disagree, but the murkiness pushes toward article improvement, not deletion. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It should also be considered if she has any notability outside of this one event... And really she doesn't the event may be notable and as such it is rightly included in 2005 in baseball.. but Katie really is not a notable person in any other regard.. do we want people who know Katie adding to her bio with other details about her life? There are privacy issues involved with a bio of a young girl. Spanneraol (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply 1E: I'd just respond with my thoughts from immediately above. As for the WP:NPF concern, that same concern could be applied to any other human being on wikipedia, couldn't it? That's why policies like WP:NPF exist. Townlake (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree on that point. I cordially dislike WP:NPF and consider it to be second only to WP:IAR on the list of unforgivably subjective policies. Trusilver 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, and if we start deciding xfD discussions on the basis of WP:IAR, then let's just shut down the whole process. Corvus cornixtalk 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2005 in baseball. She received enough attention to merit a mention somewhere, but an independent article on a Little Leaguer is really pushing things. We could probably fit the entire content of this page into 2005 in baseball, so no information will be lost in a merge. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - I already merged the article into 2005 in baseball. When my merge/redirect to the original article was reverted, I decided it had to go to AfD again as a violation of WP:BLP1E policy. BRMo (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason I gave last time: "*The standard for WP:ATHLETE for an amateur is "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Little League is the highest level available in baseball for people of her age. Her gender makes her a rarity in the sport, and her accomplishment has been achieved by only a select few. She has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame as the article states. ... The article is sourced with independent third party sources. This person is notable by amateur athletes standards." Kinston eagle (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply The standards make no mention of "highest level available... for her age".. it's just highest level available. As I say above, this isn't even the highest level for little league.. the best little league players play on all-star and tournament teams.. the quality of play at regular little league varies greatly depending on the league and district. No records exist as to perfect games in little league.. I know one kid in my son's league threw a no-hitter last week.. i'm sure perfect games occasionaly happen. She was part of an exhibit at the hall of fame, she personally was not inducted into the hall. Her game got some minor attention but her life is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If we were to follow the logical extension of Kinston eagle's comments, then every person who has every played in Little League would be notable. Corvus cornixtalk 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Though I'm on the keep side here, CC is correct. If this article survives, it can't be under WP:ATHLETE. Townlake (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment As a note, since no female player has ever been inducted into the baseball hall of fame, this young lady was given the same honor as the entire All-American Girls Professional Baseball League - being added to the Women in Baseball exhibit. Where the AAGPBL was given the honor as a group, this young woman got the honor as an individual. Jim Miller (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2005 in baseball as the information is already merged. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The game is an event, and the Baseball HOF is a second event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I have a total of three mentions over the years in publications that would be considered non-trivial. Yet I'm not notable. Why's that? because regardless of the fact that I'm mentioned doesn't mean that the mentions were for anything unusual or extraordinary. And neither is this article. She was not inducted into the hall of fame, and she has done something that kids do all the time in little league which is not all that notable either. Trusilver 06:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
12 year old girls pitch no hitters all the time? Perhaps then a list article with all of the 12 year old girls who have pitched no hitters would be appropriate then. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Even one of the people who support keeping the article admitted that she completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Is it neat that she accomplished this? sure, why not. Is it encyclopedic? not at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have been overy this from every angle and if we are going by policy, every applicable policy clearly states that an article should not exist for this. Trusilver 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Point of Order I'm not sure it's an "admission of completely failing ATHLETE" as much as it is recognizing that ATHLETE's easy-keep standards don't apply. The article still passes the fundamental WP:N test, as well as this aspect of WP:BIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I don't think many 12 year old girls are recognized for their achievements by the Hall of Fame to the point where they become part of a lasting exhibit. Townlake (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a reasonable argument. I have spoken to a friend of mine who coaches little league and he explained that no-hitters are far more common in little league than they are in professional baseball. (makes sense to me, I suppose) If this is fact, than the hype surrounding this article stems ONLY from the fact that she's a 12 year old girl. And if this is the case, does her age and gender in conjunction with doing something not at all extraordinary qualify her for notability? Trusilver 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply I'd respond to that with a couple things. First, there's a difference between a no hitter (which I agree is common in LL) and a perfect game where the pitcher strikes out every batter (as is the case here). The latter is far, far more rare, no matter who is pitching. The fact this was done by the only girl in her Little League, against a squad of all dudes, is the whole reason this was made into a big deal to begin with - the Hall of Fame saw fit to label it extraordinary, which is not something they do lightly. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, while I'm not 100% convinced that this article fully passes notability standards themselves, I do feel that it has at least a weak grasp on the spirit of the notability standards. That said, I'm changing my position to a weak keep. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's still just one event.. A perfect game does not mean they struck out all the batters... it just means they didn't reach base... could be a ground out a strikeout, a flyout whatever... In any matter, it may be a unique event but I still don't think it makes Katie worthy of her own article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To be clear about it, in Katie's perfect game she DID strike out all the batters. In other words, a perfect perfect game. I'm not sure this had ever been accomplished in organized ball at any level before. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Little League website says "it does happen a few times each year". Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - A question for those of you who are voting for keep. I'm actually ok with the idea that Brownell's game and the subsequent recognition deserve to be covered by Wikipedia. But why does it have to be in a separate biographical article? Regardless of the technicalities of WP:BLP1E, the spirit of it seems quite straightforward—if it's possible to merge coverage of a person who is temporarily newsworthy into another article rather than having a separate biography, it is preferable to do so. I've demonstrated that the material in this article can be merged into 2005 in baseball; if another location is preferable, that would be fine too. But it doesn't need to be a biography. Since BLP1E advises doing a merge and redirect, what's the objection to doing that? BRMo (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect, your questions have been dissected in tremendous detail above. I know you mean well, but I'm not sure what we gain by resetting the discussion and starting it anew down here. Townlake (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article satisfies WP:RS, but let's think about this. Is a kid pitching a perfect game encyclopedic? The answer to that is no, sources or not. I'm invoking WP:IAR here, I don't see how this is worthy of an article. Wizardman 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure this happens quite often (and I am sure that it's going to happen over and over again in the future), and there is no reason to pick out this one incident as notable. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something happens "quite often" and "that it's going to happen over and over again in the future" is not a valid argument. War, for example, happens "quite often" and in all probability will "happen over and over again in the future". This would not reduce the notability of World War II, for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, rain happens too. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If a girl throwing a perfect game in Little League by striking out every single batter faced happens quite often as you claim, please provide sources for other examples, I would very much like to read about them. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh -- there's the logical rub. If it happens so often that it's non-notable, then it doesn't get reported. A bit of a conundrum. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. The Baseball Hall of Fame seemed to find the accomplishment notable, as did the White House, as did numerous press outlets. Townlake (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I no longer think that just having two RSs makes someone notable when the accomplishment is not itself of any real importance. I'd like some evidence that this is. I'd accept it if it happened in the LL national championship./ The deciding factor for me was the cite above that it happens several times a year in the LL. DGG (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Again If you can provide sources that show Cooperstown routinely recognizes girls who pitch perfect, all-strikeout games against all-boy LL teams, we're anxious to see those sources. Townlake (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The fact that the Hall of Fame took note of this really only proves that her parents are better at getting publicity for their kid than most Little League folks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Townlake, you're failing to prove why this article is particularly notable. It happens often, if Cooperstown notices one particular one, that doesn't make it that much moe notable. Wizardman 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Reply The gender component of the story is the distinguishing factor that touched off the stream of recognition. That's why Cooperstown took an unusual interest in her. (As an aside: the reason I've been so interested in this AfD is that I find it fascinating the Baseball Hall of Fame deems her notable, but Wikipedia might not.) Townlake (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment: Is Cooperstown just trying to be "with it" and "politically correct" by choosing 1 youth (who happens to be female)? And doesn't the difficulty of the event (which is why it is logged when a professional pitcher does it) depend on the skill of the batter? 27 strike-outs by players of this age/skill level does not seem that notable. (IMNO) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • It's actually only 18 strikeouts in this case. Little League is only six innings. Spanneraol (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Frankly, the arguments to keep this are terrible. What's next, junior croquet players? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.


[edit] Basketball

[edit] Cameron Crazies

Cameron Crazies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article concerns a loose affiliation of fans of Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. The only claim of notability seems to stem from an online ESPN column that referred to them as the rowdiest fans in the land. Aside from stating that they are indeed fans of Duke's teams, and that they are in fact rowdy, this stub has absolutely no purpose or encyclopedic worth. It's composed of one paragraph of casual observation and two links to sports publications acknowledging their existence. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

  • Ephraim Lavey (via WP:PROD) AAU Basketball MVP championship in Las Vegas with his Team Bevwood

for occasional archiving


 Cricket
WikiProject
Lead article talk
Portal talk
Root category talk
Main project page talk
 → Featured material
 → Notability guidelines
 → Style guide
 → Quiz
Announcements and open tasks
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → To-do list talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Article assessment talk
Reviews talk
Media talk
Images talk
edit · changes

[edit] Cricket

Proposed deletion candidates
none at present
Categories for discussion
none at present
Templates for discussion
none at present


Primary listing for deletion nominations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Items may be cross-listed here to allow automated archiving. (as of 2007-11-22)

[edit] Football

[edit] Jérémy Hélan

Jérémy Hélan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Never played for first team. Sparrowgoose (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darnel Situ

Darnel Situ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Never played for first team. Sparrowgoose (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Golf

[edit] Articles for deletion

[edit] Proposed deletions


for occasional archiving


[edit] Hockey

[edit] Akim Aliu

Akim Aliu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this article per an agreement to resurrect it from a hasty speedy deletion. I fully admit he is close to the threshold at this point of his career, but I think he's on the keep side. My main agreement towards keep would be that he recently played professionally for the Rockford Icehogs and that alone satisfies WP:BIO. He is also known for being on the receiving end of one of Steve Downie's "episodes". ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice. He's not a first round draft pick or a top prospect and hasn't played enough games in the AHL, so he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria yet.-Wafulz (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Article surpasses requests made in WP:BIO. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? It explicitly doesn't meet the requirements for athletes.-Wafulz (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:BIO says: Sportspeople
          • Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
          • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and who meet the general criteria of multiple secondary sources published about them.[9]

IMO he meets the bolded text, unless I'm misreading something, which I might be. Dusticomplain/compliment 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

            • It's actually the unbolded part he meets. He has played professionally, he has not competed in the highest level of amateur hockey which would be the Olympics or World Championships. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Ooops, I misunderstood where he was competing, but still, he meets it so it would be a violation of policy to delete this article saying he doesn't meet it when he actually does. Dusticomplain/compliment 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While I believe people with this little pro experience should be deleted. He does actually meet WP:ATHLETE by having played professionally. And since WP:BIO is the rule for now he meets the threshold. He does however fail to meet the hockey projects guidelines for notability for whatever that is worth. -Djsasso (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Just curious, but when did WP:ATHLETE bump up from professional to "high-level" professional league? ccwaters (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not sure, I hadn't noticed that change until now, looks like someone changed it about a month ago without any discussion, I have since reverted it back to its original statement. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Hasn't played in the NHL, hasn't won any notable awards in the AHL, and isn't otherwise notable. If he gets caled up to the NHL, though, bring his article back. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This player has yet to establish notability based on the project's notability standards. Had this player been the first player from Nigeria to make it to the ice then that in itself would have made him notable, but he is the second. If he ever makes it to the NHL, or makes it 5 or more seasons AND 100 games in the AHL or similar league if that is the highest level he makes it to then bring back the article. From a project's standpoint, making exceptions to the notability criteria is just opening Pandora's box for other players who are not yet notable. Either we have standards or we don't. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The only issue is that we do have standards and he meets them for having played professionally. WP:ATHLETE, our ice hockey project guidelines are only meant to try and stop people from creating them in the first place. However once they are created WP:BIO takes over and says he is notable for having played professionally. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I do not understand the difference. What you are basically saying is this: If this article did not yet exist, it should NOT be created because he has played less than 100 games and less than 5 seasons in a league such as the AHL, as such it fails the project's notability standards. But, since someone created the article already, we should allow the article to remain because WP:BIO says he is professional and is notable. If this is the case, then our notability standards MUST be changed to reflect that if ANY player plays in at least 1 game in a fully professional league, that they are notable. We can't have it both ways. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The hockey project for the most part doesn't agree with WP:BIO and we created our own set of guidlines to try and get members of the project to follow them when creating articles. (if you look at the hockey projects guidelines, it specifically says for the scope of the hockey project). WP:BIO however is policy and trumps anything we as a project decide on, and no one is obligated to follow our guidelines. We have tried to change WP:BIO a number of times and it always gets shot down pretty heavily mostly because there are so many nuances in the various sports that the section for athletes would become rediculously complicated. There have been numerous proposals in the past to change it but it never seems to succeed. As it stands right now anyone who has played a single game is notible enough for wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The AHL is a professional hockey league, therefore it meets WP:BIO. Patken4 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But it's not a top-level pro league. The NHL is, and he hasn't been there yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Where is it stated in WP:BIO that it must be a top level pro league? All it says is that it must be "fully professional", which while a vague phrase, does mean that AHL is meets that criteria. WP:BIO will trump whatever our hockey project guidelines are. Patken4 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Going strictly by WP:ATHLETE standards, he is notable. The AHL ia a fully-professional league as relates to policy.Jim Miller (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject meets my interpretation of WP:ATHLETE standards. RFerreira (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He reaches the standards of WP:ATHLETE, so why is there even an argument? Rubythrees (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wrestling

[edit] American football

[edit] WP:PROD nominations

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.