Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard Valley Conference (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:39, 15 July 2008

Blanchard Valley Conference

Fails WP:NOTE; High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Material is mainly duplicate information anyway that is provided on a central list. Examples of articles that have been deleted from the central list already, Cincinnati Hills League, Greater Miami Conference, and Suburban League. Therefore these other 20+ articles that show no difference than those should be deleted as well. Here are some examples from other states that have had conferences deleted, Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference. These are the 27 articles proposed by User:UWMSports for deletion as stated in previous discussion. Other conferences will be evaluated individually. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reluctance - I am not convinced that all of these nominees are in violation of WP:N, and I am pretty sure that nowhere does it say "high school athletic conferences are automatically not notable." I would be more willing to look at them a few at a time, because I am equally sure that many of these are pretty likely worthy of deletion ..... but I can't do it lock stock and barrel. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Facts laid out well by nominator. Doesn't make sense to have some exist and others not. I would say if keep is the decision those deleted conferences should be re-built. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be clear: you are OK with deleting articles with established notability just because an editor chose to bundle them, and your thinking is "eh, the editors can just start over from scratch and rewrite it", even if it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place? I'm just asking.
Keep - Please look at specific articles that I've been able to take the time to rewrite with sourcing: Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference. These articles should show that when given time, they can be properly sourced to show their notability. I've been slowly working on these articles to get them up to par, but being stubs is NOT a valid deletion reason. Additionally, the nominator has been relatively active in inhibiting or harassing people working on these articles, as can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. matt91486 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, new responders, please take the time to read the previous AfD. Most of the pieces of information cited aren't valid things, like PRODs that missed contesting, and a botched CSD. None of the information cited is actually consensus-based precedent, and shouldn't really be used in this, or any, AfD. matt91486 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've long proposed those 27 articles be deleted based on the reasons BurpTheBaby has layed out. However, Matt91486 and a couple others have done a nice job upgrading some of the articles and it's a long job with basically no recognition. I responded to a note he left on my talkpage the other day wanting to know how I intend on handling these articles in the future. I said I'd give him and others the summer to keep improving the articles based on their efforts so far. I think he deserves that. I would encourage the other users that were so big in the last AfD to help Matt. He's going to need it. So I will refrain from voting delete until Labor Day at the earliest. I recommend that this AfD be suspended. The user who proposed it has not been cooperative with those on the other side of the fence either. I don't like the timing of this AfD one bit. -- UWMSports (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per every lasy reason from the last gruelling(sp?) Afd. I will request a withdraw, take a look at Burp's contribs. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nomination is being made in bad faith. It was made in an attempt to undermine the efforts of the Wikipedia community to improve these articles. It should also be noted that the previous nomination was closed barely a month ago Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Frank Anchor above. This AfD seems to be exactly what WP:GAME is here to prevent NewYork483 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assure you that this is not bad faith. I find it funny that no one is helping Matt with the conferences, but the moment an AfD comes to light everyone cries foul. Excluding matt and a tad bit of frank, how come none of you have helped rebuild the conferences? It really is embarrassing. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.B. - While I am no fan of abandoned articles, I think:

1. All people leaving comments here do not necessarily work on articles related to athletic conferences. Some people work on other articles, and coming through AfD, see one, examine it, and leave their comments. Some of these people will oppose deletion for a variety reasons. They have the right to.

2. A lot of people are in the midst of working on other articles that are equally in need of care, or in other stages of improvement.

It is a shame that some articles end up in bad shape for very long periods of time, but that's no reason to be lecturing everyone for not helping.

Further, I note that B.B. has been here for shade over a month. I'm not sure I would go the route of saying this is a bad faith nom unless there has been some communication as to why this is a bad idea. Still, it is every editor's right to make a nomination, just as it is the community's right to recommend an article for being kept or deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, also pointing out other articles that were deleted in a similar fassion is not a valid reason for deletion. Busta Baxta (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ::It is a shame that some articles end up in bad shape for very long periods of time, but that's no reason to be lecturing everyone for not helping.
 ::Further, I note that B.B. has been here for shade over a month.  I'm not sure I would go the route of saying this is a bad faith nom unless there has been some communication as to why this is a bad idea.  Still, it is every editor's right to make a nomination, just as it is the community's right to recommend an article for being kept or deletion. [[User:LonelyBeacon|LonelyBeacon]] ([[User talk:LonelyBeacon|talk]]) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' per above, also [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|pointing out other articles]] that were deleted in a similar fassion is not a valid reason for deletion. [[User:Busta Baxta|Busta Baxta]] ([[User talk:Busta Baxta|talk]]) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)