Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ches-Mont League

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. No consensus to delete at the moment (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ches-Mont League[edit]

Contested prod; contested on the grounds that similar articles on other leagues in the area exist. I see no notability for either this league, nor the other ones used to back up including this, so am nominating the set; there are literally thousands, and likely hundreds of thousands, of similar leagues worldwide.

Also nominating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_school_sports_conferences_and_leagues_in_the_United_States

Are you proposing that all high school sports conferences and leagues in the US have their pages deleted on this basis? I imagine very few of them match up to your definition of "notability," if that's the basis you're wiping the Philadelphia area leagues out on. - The Amendment (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless there's evidence of notability. I support the inclusion of schools, generally, as they tend to have substantial impacts on the wider community they serve; the same isn't the case for minor athletic leagues. I entirely support the extension of the existing Football notability guidelines to other sporting leagues. (All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable; All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable; All other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.) – iride scent 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing football notability guidelines to high school athletics conferences is impossible, for starters. It's not the same structure. And media coverage exists for high school athletics conferences which allow them to meet the primary criteria for notability. High school conference leagues aren't the same as a league of 5-a-side teams. For one, the usually span all sports, which make trying to judge them based on one sports' guidelines entirely unfair. matt91486 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have many such articles (Missota_Conference is another). The existence and membership of these leagues is well documented, with reliable sources including newspapers particularly. The subject is of interest to people in the relatively large geographic areas they serve, as well as surrounding areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - high school athletic conferences do achieve notability and are extensively covered in major newspapers. Articles about conference mergers, shifts, etc, are of significant importance to local communities and coverage can be found given archival searches. I've taken the time to do this on a few high school conferences myself, so I'm saying that from a position of experience. matt91486 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. So they get mentioned in local newspapers. That's not notability. The mayor of a 500 person town gets mentioned in his local paper regularly too. Doesn't make him notable either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all this isn't an article on a person, or even on a team, but on an entire athletic league. I would certainly not support articles on individual high school teams, unless they were national champions. But a league is a much broader topic. .DGG (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it's not about a person or team. Apparently you don't get my point. I know I'm a minority, but I don't believe that local coverage establishes notability. Local papers have to cover local events. That's their job. They have to fill space, especially in a market where there are competing papers. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers do not simply cover them. Major papers of record in states cover them. The difference between being covered by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the local weekly free drop-off paper is significant. The circulations of the major papers covering these subjects indicates that they are notable. matt91486 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't a difference. If you live in Minneapolis, the Star-Tribune is the local paper. Their mandate is to cover local news, along with other news. I'm cerain that in every single issue of the Star-Tribune, you can find coverage of local events that we can all agree aren't notable. Just looking at the Star Tribunes website, I see an article on local bass fishing and one on staying afloat in the houseboat business (totally local interest). I bet if I had the hard copy in front of me, I'd see little league scores and local bowling leagues too. Local papers, regardless of their size, must cover local events. If all they covered were national/international ones, people would just get USA Today. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere is it mandated that a subject receive national coverage. matt91486 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And currently, you're arguing an off-site OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to try to undermine the credibility of a paper with a circulation of over 300,000. matt91486 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2009 (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.