Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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 log)

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)
  • 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 - !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
  • your name here
  • 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
  • your name here
  • 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)

[edit] Arbitrary break 5

  • 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)