Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was an utter mess of a discussion, from which no policy-informed consensus either way is discernible. If these articles are still seen as problematic, I recommend individual re-nominations, one after the other. A centralised discussion might be even better, as it would allow us to consider solutions that do not involve deletion (e.g., merging). — Procedural note: To save time, I'll be removing the dozens of AfD tags with administrative rollback, and only the first talk page will be tagged with an AfD notice.  Sandstein  19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure note: Some editors have proposed to continue discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences.  Sandstein  20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Conference[edit]

Arbitrary Header Section[edit]

Pioneer Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (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.

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)[reply]


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

Beginning of discussions[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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.[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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. [reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Same here; and so is Jimbo from the sound of it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Jimbo? hahahahaha --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep all. Let's keep Wikipedia great and focus energy on more important matters.EagleFan (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please prove that the article which was deleted was similar to these articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohio_High_School_Athletic_Conferences#Cincinnati_Hills_League; "and the crowd goes wild!" :) --UWMSports (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    They may be notable to you, but they have never been deemed notable yet on Wikipedia. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    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]
    Reply I sadly have to agree it does look like a few of them. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CommentThis sounds like a good task for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ohio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • keep all - there is an important history laid out here. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the important history? --UWMSports (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    See Suburban League; Three bits of precedent now. Your move. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Where is your evidence to negate these? You can't just ignore them. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Obviously the admin that deleted some of those articles agreed with the prod. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment - Good edit David, can you agree to that Baby and Frank? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4 - Summary/Poll[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Smartest thing said yet here. Haha! --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5 - non poll discussion continues[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
Actually, over half of those nominated have more than school listings Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Arbitrary break 5 didn't get a lot of love, haha. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I guess not Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment It's still just a list. No history there. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ohh and 2 years ago, consensus can change even if there was consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Jeff, no worries, Portage is on the list of 13 that will get a closer look. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is hardly that, Jeff. All these conferences belong to the Ohio High School Athletic System. That is why they all had to come here together. They are part of a unit!!! It is not about Cleveland compared to small towns miles off any interstate highway in Ohio. If it was about that, how come there'd be a central list with conferences from all over Ohio? I'm not a deletionist or a inclusionist. You are speaking to the nominator, and I assure you that is not the case. There was precedent in the past of a high school conference in this system being deleted. My concern is if that was going to be deleted, how come other similar conferences exist. I've already compromised that certain pages should remain that have notable history, etc. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to handle this is to close it then kick it back to a merger discussion, perhaps sponsored by WikiProject Ohio, to reorganize all these articles plus possibly a new article Ohio High School Athletic System. My recommendation: A category called Category:Ohio High School Athletic System or Category:Ohio Primary and Secondary Sports along with a main article for that category. The main article talk page can host the merger discussion. Those conferences deemed not notable enough for a full article can become redirects, without any AfD required. If, after the merger discussion, editors still feel that a given article is non-notable, they can bring it up for AfD individually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No David, it isn't. Delete the 27 articles on UWM's list and bring the other 13 back for discussions down the road. Merger discussions go no where fast. And this isn't about a merger, this is about deleting several articles that look like Cincinnati Hills League. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing back articles from the dead is harder that it looks. There's no point in erasing an article if it is going to come back in a substantially similar form. You can argue for deleting articles that merely duplicate content, such as some of the stubs whose information is duplicated in a list, since re-creating is possible. However, deleting a substantive article should only be done when there is a mandatory reason to delete like copyvio, when the substantive article is so poorly written or so contentious that "startover" is the best solution, or when no substantive article could be written on the topic and still pass AfD, which is the case for non-notable entities. IMHO if you are arguing that "13 conferences are notable, 14 are not" then any article with substantive content must either be kept or be kept for now and relisted separately.
If you are arguing that 13 conferences are notable and could have good articles in the future, and 14 are not notable and never could barring new notability, then you should close this AfD and relist the 13 individually and group-list the 14 as "non-notable Ohio-area High School football conferences." Before you do, make sure most people agree that the 14 are in fact not notable. Because this AfD has been open so long and because some of those who followed it early thought it was an all-or-none decision, it's only fair to relist rather than delete 14 and keep 13 as a result of this AfD. Because there is "no consensus" on at least 1 of these conferences, and by your own admission possibly as many as 13, it is unwise to delete them all - it's a ticket to deletion review, which would just prolong things unnecessary as the deletions would likely be overturned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reset indent
I would like to see all 40 go, but it is a compromise at this point to allow the other 13 a chance to be judged separately. We've wasted enough time to have this article closed as you want it. The 27 articles that should be deleted resemble no difference to the Cincinnati article that was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And UWM laid out the list well. An admin can see that and make their decision based on that. Things do not need to be listed separately. There is a reason why Wikipedia gives instructions on how to bundle articles together in an AfD. It is to save time and get everyone discussing it at once. This singular discussion may be running over a week, but if you list every article separately it could take a year! It would be a total waste of time. We can cut the fat here and delete 27 articles that is merely duplicate information to the central list. Work on the 13 that I have compromised with. If those pages are developed into good articles, maybe you guys can plan on a project to re-create the other 27+. Use your sandbox or whatever to work on those after you've provided a solid 13. Make no mistake, those 13 are in very bad shape. Those should be your focus. Those will be re-listed separately if they aren't improved. By the way, they are athletic conferences, not football conferences. Might want to rename all those pages you created:p. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Comment I agree with DGG, we are getting nowhere fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment May the closing admin remember that 75% of the usual suspects in here are associated with the articles. So a WP:COI may be possible. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe contributing to articles falls in line with any of the examples noted in the COI policy. Unless you're suggesting a real world conflict.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment We're on the 7th section of the same people putting forth the same deletion arguments, and the same people putting forth the same keep arguements. Not sure what else is going to be accomplished by moving to sections 8, 9 & 10.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC
    Comment - I agree, delete the 27 articles that is duplicate information from Ohio High School Athletic Conferences and Ohio High School Athletic Association that look like the former Cincinnati Hills League. I will compromise with leaving the other 13 for a closer, individual look. This is a compromise! I believe those should be deleted too, but they do have a little bit more info than the two lists the other 27 conferences mirror. They need a lot of work and can be given a month or so to be improved. Otherwise I suspect those opposed to keeping any articles will re-list them. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And i've already typed in one of the above sections why I disagree with the premise of your proposed comprimise. I could cut and paste it again down here, then you can repeat why you disagree with my disagreement. We're not going to agree no matter how many words we type back and forth.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG. Close as no consensus and take this elsewhere. This is highly irregular for an AfD to take a format like this. I would suggest nominating one example from each of the categories (list-only, list-plus-other-info), let those AfDs play out individually, and then start a discussion on what to do with the whole category. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this and a no consensus? I think we are overthinking this. Yes, its highly irregular. But these conferences are all under the same Ohio System, therefore they had to be listed together. Something needs to come out of this AfD! Otherwise we wasted a week. Delete the 27. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a no consensus decision would be a big mistake. I agree with Huskies; UWM broke the articles down well and that provides a good blue print for the closing admin to make his/her decision upon. After looking at the 27 articles there is really nothing there that isn't on the main list. So I ask what are we holding on to there? It already exists!!! However, I disagree that the other 13 should be deleted down the road. They have unique qualities, such as one being in two states. It's pretty cut and dry for the closing admin. Delete the 27 that look like that deleted Cincinnati article and keep the other 13. --FancyMustard (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really solve anything. That solution would say that high school athletic conferences have notability. And if they have notability, then the articles that are team lists should be able to stay up and be marked as stubs for future expansion, because they could be given the same league histories, etc, and then would be in the other group that survived this. It's really arbitrary to say that anything written well enough by some standard at this point is OK, otherwise it should go. It's under some assumption that none of them can be improved in the future, which doesn't make any sense to me. matt91486 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 8 - chart of schools[edit]

It's in dispute whether being a high school athletic conference is itself clearly notable, near the border between notable and not notable, or clearly not notable. If being a high school athletic conference is clearly notable, then all articles, even stubs, should pass. If being a high school athletic conference is inself near the border between notable and not notable, then well-written articles plus articles that have an independent claim of clear notability should pass. If it's clearly not notable, then even an article that otherwise meets FA standards should fail unless the individual conference either clearly notable or is a well-written article near the border between notable and not notable. It's the consensus of editors here that the normal rules of "receives significant non-trivial media coverage equals notability" doesn't apply here, if it does, as evidenced by the fact that we didn't speedy-close this as "keep all/snow" on day one.

To help those who think school conferences are marginally or almost notable, as well as those who want to delete all which do not have an independent claim of clear notability, I've prepared this table. Please make corrections and additions.

This chart is incomplete. Please strike this line when it is complete.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pioneer_Conference&oldid=1142527149"