Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Sierra League

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 no consensus‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sierra League[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Central Sierra League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of these leagues meet the relevant notability thresholds. It's likely that WP:NCORP applies, but even the lower threshold (in terms of source independence) of WP:GNG is not met here. In fact, none of them have any independent sources that provide significant coverage of the individual leages. Articles included in this nomination per WP:BUNDLE are:

I've taken these from Category:CIF Central Section; if there are any others that belong in this bundle nom, please let me know. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section: Most of these leagues do not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. However, there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV about the Hi-Lo League due to the geography of the conference. [[1]][[2]]. Per the previous Afd, redirect all of the others to CIF Central Section. User:Let'srun 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • * Keep This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California. It then sets a precedent to wipe out this type of content across all the other regions across the country. Each of these leagues carries an equal status of the qualification path to section championships. In theory, over time, eventual champions will be fairly evenly distributed. Some teams and perhaps their leagues will excel under certain conditions for certain periods of time but this includes all sports over an extended period of time, at a minimum this leaguing structure will last a few years but most follow similar structure for decades. Some of these schools have existed and played sports for over a hundred years. All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV. How can I make such a statement? Because there are newspapers, broadcast media and sports specialty media everywhere in the USA. They want to sell their content. Sports is a staple of news content. Any media wishing to claim local significance has to cover the local high school sports teams, each of which will participate in these leagues across a variety of sports for championships year after year. The content has to exist. Under WP:N it would be called "presumed." Since I don't know this area well, I Googled a random league. I took Southeast Yosemite League. Here's [3] a Bakersfield Californian article about the relatively short history of this league and the long term build up to its formation. MaxPreps defines the league for football here [4]. Here's [5] baseball coverage, cross country and track coverage [6], basketball coverage [7]. And here is the wider metastasis. A kid from the league goes to college and plays in Missouri, so they mention the league in which he was a leader [8] and note this is from a previous incarnation of the league with different team structure. There are pages of results under the league name which can be found with very little effort. WP:BEFORE says before you delete, put in the effort to look. It's there. If you don't feel there are enough sources in each article, use your editing skills to put it in for your own satisfaction, rather than taking an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand. I suggest this entire nomination be removed. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trackinfo That Bakersfield Californian article looks like WP:SIGCOV to me, but it's not enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. Your comment suggests to me that expanding the content at CIF Central Section with that source and splitting into a stand-alone article if additional coverage is identified in the future is a very reasonable path forward. Can you say more about why you oppose a redirect here? Suriname0 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section I agree with Let'srun that these don't meet WP:GNG, except possibly for Hi-Lo League which has significantly more coverage. As such, Hi-Lo League should be considered separately, but nothing is lost from redirecting all the others. If any of the others are found to meet WP:GNG in the future, they can always be recreated then and only then. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the redirect arguments are technically correct, I'm finding Trackinfo's IAR argument very compelling. I am not recalling the specifics, but we had a similar discussion about athletic conferences in a Great Lakes state several years ago that closed as a Keep. Google isn't the end of the available information as we all know. High school athletic programs in general are subject of great interest to the general public (at least in the US and Canada) and are generally covered very well in local media. Conferences are the framework of most of the competition. Things like foundation, termination, schools joining and leaving are going to be covered in some depth by the local paper and in most cases will get a mention in the state athletic authority's newsletter or blog and may even be the subject of a short blurb in USA Today or The Sporting News. In a practical sense, having articles on athletic conferences allows us to report athletic history in individual school articles more completely without cluttering them up with what are in the worldview minor information. We can just link to the conference article for that. In almost every case, it is possible to provide the readers with considerable verifiable information on, for example, yearly championships referenced back to the conference's website.

So, the TLDR version of the above is: there's a weak Keep argument based on presumption of local coverage and a compelling IAR argument based on utility. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I carried out searches for these nominations, but I also based this nomination on 1. the deletion of the referenced previous AfD and 2. my assumption that the situation would be substantially identical for all these cases. It's already been shown that at least one of the nominations shouldn't be considered with this nom, so I struck that out in the list above. I weighed the benefits of individual noms against the very high workload that those individual noms would have put on the limited resources of AfD. If it turns out that there is substantial difference between these leagues in terms of notability, individual nominations may be necessary, though.
I'd also like to address what Trackinfo said.
This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California.
I don't quite understand the accusatory tone of this. Large swaths of articles on inappropriate topics are frequently created (primarily by new editors) and often subsequently deleted if the community finds them to be inappropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory. The argument that All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV directly contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and editor analysis that a subject will certainly become notable in the future is unverifiable. Calling this nomination an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand is unduly accusatory and hardly civil. I understand your argument, and the bundling of these nominations may not have been the best way to go. But it was well-intentioned, and I would appreciate some civility as we figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks for your work and your time. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I am adding sources to all of these articles. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know when you are done. So far I don't see any WP:SIGCOV on any of these articles. Let'srun (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (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.
I'm sorry this took me so long, I had other obligations rather than to spend hours on wikipedia. I shouldn't have had to do it for you. I believe I have added at least one source or more to each article listed above. As predicted there is local media coverage of each league. I tried to keep sources limited to discussing the league, specifically the All League players, which would be the kind of seasonal, routine league coverage I had predicted would be there in my earlier comments. That coverage goes back year after year if you want to follow it. This is the "presumed" coverage the notability standards refer to. Its there for every one, and for those pushing for a precedent to wipe out such leagues globally, its there for any scholastic league you look for. If any local media were to ignore the local sports, it would be a death sentence. If you don't find it for virtually anywhere in the USA, most likely it is your incompetence at google. Outside of USA, your media quality may vary. In addition to the wide view of the league, there is coverage of competition in the various sports administered by these leagues including national sport-specific media. Each school also self promotes the progress of their teams, measured by their place in league standings. If you press this, we can load these articles up with all of these other sources. That wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia with a broader view. Pay attention. Sources exist and this quest for deletion should not. If you had looked, this "discussion" shouldn't have existed in the first place. That is what WP:BEFORE says. And the repeated failure of NOMs; to make nominations before looking for sources, is why I take such a condescending attitude. Trackinfo (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Sierra_League&oldid=1175561202"