Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Conference

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Conference[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A local high school athletic conference. I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This is like hundreds of athletic conferences across the US. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... and we have hundreds of articles about athletic conferences across the US, see Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States. I don't know the specific consensus or policy on these, so I can't say keep as a matter of policy, nor do I have any wish to have this or other ones deleted. Mandsford 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common practice appears to be that sports conferences are inherently notable. Mandsford 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where this has been discussed, because I can't find anything. In what way does this conference meet the general notability guideline? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry put it is common practice that the subject of every article meets one or more of the various notability guidelines and this one does not appear to. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.....with the changes in the conference this year, it is nice to have one place to keep up to date. — Radiomanil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news source for the latest news on a subject or a webhost so people can keep up to date with the latest changes. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a kin to WP:ITSUSEFUL and as GB fan said WP is not a news source or a replacement for a organisations own website. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have gone back and reviewed the changes that have been made since I nominated this article for deletion. It is better, but notability is still not established. There are now six references in the article. Two of them are significant and reliable, but they are just local news reports about changes to the conference this year, nothing to establish notability. The other four sources are all primary sources and do not help establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a GB Fan, high school sports may not be important to you, but in East Central Illinois it is. Just because you do not find it relevant does not mean someone should as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiomanil (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what sports I am a fan of. This only has to do with whether this article complies with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. So far I have not seen anything that says it does. Please leave personal motivation out of it and discuss how the article complies with Wikipedia policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CLUB as it does not appear to have any sources that cover the subject of the athletic conference outside local ones. None of the Keep !votes have addressed this issue. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. See this article from Effingham Daily News, this article and this article from Herald & Review, this article from thexradio.com, this article and ~~this article~~ from Journal Gazette & Times Courier, and this article from Olney Daily Mail. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at this coverage, in order presented above:

A local news story about residents discussing the pros and cons of joining the conference.
A story about how the school district in #1 declined the offer to join the conference.
A local news story about how the school district above and another district are going to save the conference.
Another story about the the school district in #1 and #2 declined the invitation to join the conference.
A story about how it might be time for a different school district to leave the conference.
A report on a football game that does not even mention the Apollo Conference.
Finally a report on a Apollo conference basketball game.

I do not see how this group of links establish that this is a notable conference. This is all just local coverage about a conference, nothing to say it is notable ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the article that fails to mention the subject, I believe the rest of the sources are enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

I consider local sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight to be sufficient sources to establish notability. That there are sources from multiple newspapers discussing the conference demonstrates the impact it has had on the community. Though ref #2 may not seem to establish notability, ref #1 clearly does in that it provides an analysis of the benefits and negatives of the conferences. Ref #3 also demonstrates that the community deems it important enough to seek to salvage it. I stand by my position that this article should be kept since it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Cunard but local sources are fine for the facts in the article, they are no good in showing that a subject is notable, either way can you show how this meets WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:CLUB#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations:

No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet the sourcing requirements of
these alternate criteria, and/or

the primary criteria, and/or

the general notability guideline.

I have demonstrated that Apollo Conference passes the general notability guideline, which means that it passes WP:CLUB#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations as well. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In it's current stub like state and with the aforementioned arguments, I feel that this article has passed both WP:N and WP:V. Pmedema (talk)

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.