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


 * 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   redirect unsourced articles, keep sourced ones, per general agreement at the poll below. Mango juice talk 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes: the articles kept were Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference. I also kept Northwest Conference (Iowa) since redirecting it to the Ohio conference page makes no sense.  (And if I read the rest of the debate, there isn't a clear consensus, and certainly no one talks about this specific article.  Please, if someone cares, nominate it individually.)  Mango juice talk 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanchard Valley Conference
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

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 (since re-added by User:RockMFR), Greater Miami Conference (since re-added by User:RockMFR), 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. Burp The Baby   (Talk)  18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference without improvement since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list as they are articles brought back in their dead state by an admin who just had the power to do so.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. matt91486 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep per above, also pointing out other articles that were deleted in a similar fashion is not a valid reason for deletion. Busta Baxta (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are turning OtherStuffExists 180 degrees. Thats to be used when a user complains that their article is a target when others of similar quality exist. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists works both ways. Read the policy. It states "We do not have an article on y [in this case, the deleted Cincinnati Hills League and other conferences named in the nomination], so we should not have an article on this [meaning the 27 conferences you propose to delete]" as being an invalid reason to delete an article.  Frank Anchor  Talk to me  14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails Notability. Just because a couple users are looking to upgrade the articles that does not make them notable. WP:PRETTY is not a reason to keep articles. I see all or nothing here. The previous AfD had other conferences that were unique for reasons like existing in two states, famous athletes, etc. These 27 do not differ from each other even if some look nicer than others. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can compare the West Shore Conference article with the Ohio Cardinal Conference article. They differ significantly. ~ Eóin (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:PRETTY applies with the number of reliable sources I've been able to find. matt91486 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not a matter of WP:PRETTY! There are some articles with references in WP:RS.  They have established notability and verifiability.  They are full articles (not lists, directories, or some other grey area).  There is no reason for them to be listed.  I have already said that this nomination was not in bad faith, and I stand by it, but there has clearly been a grave error.  I would strongly recommend ending this, and trying smaller bundles, or listing them singly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- Reliable sources don't establish that something is notable. My son was written about for his 1st place victory at a local Science fair. While that source is from a reliable paper, it does not make him notable enough to have his own Wikipedia entry. What you have here is basically you have a few local websites that publish about these schools and some local newspapers that have to fill their sports page. Don't be fooled because something has sources. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory and that is precisely what these conferences are. A directory of every high school conference in Ohio. -- FancyMustard ( talk ) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "fooled" by anything. Your son, had he been in several newspapers, would have only not been notable for one event status.  High school conferences last for years and wouldn't have the same one event notability.  These articles, when fleshed out fully, are not at all directories.    You should re-read the criteria that you linked to.  These articles don't meet any of those, so I have no idea what you're trying to imply with that policy. matt91486 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that being mentioned in WP:RS does not automatically confer notability, and your example is a good one. Some of these are nothing more than directories, and should be deleted.  Some are not.  Some have (within the context of what they are) notable histories and have had notable membership.  All I am asking is:  relist them so that we can review them separately.  My history is to tend deletion, but I do not support railroading good articles out with the bad. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a very bad example. A WP:BLP has more stringent rules for notability than most of the other articles on Wikipedia.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These were 27 that most people agreed upon as equal status at the last AfD. Everything and anything can have a history. The Ohio Cardinal Conference formed in 2001. It is hardly a rich and notable history. -- FancyMustard ( talk ) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of them have been completely rewritten since then; the rest have not had the chance yet. And the length of history is not what's important, it's the amount of media coverage the league has received.  The FIRST sentence of the actual content of WP:N:  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."  The Ohio Cardinal Conference certainly has received that, and I think the article pretty clearly illustrates that. matt91486 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss for how any of these articles qualify for speedy deletion. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * General Comment - as I mentioned on a talk page a while back, my biggest issue with these articles is the precedent that they provide. So if it comes to us needing to reach a consensus somewhere, I'll be willing to move towards a deletion of the articles that have not been rewritten with sources, which would amount to the nominated articles minus Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference which assert notability quite clearly, provided that the deletion has no prejudice towards recreation of articles when we are able to have them finished and sourced.  I  don't think this is an ideal solution, since I think that stub articles are fine since they can be shown to be notable with work and it's ridiculous to delete things for being incomplete, but I think its even more ridiculous to go round and round in another week long debate and get nowhere, so that's where I'm willing to compromise.  My biggest issue is that this AfD should not be able to serve as a precedent for the deletion of sourced, notable high school conferences.  If we have to delete the ones that are just lists temporarily until they are expanded, I disagree, but whatever, that's not the big issue for me.  I just wanted to be completely up front about my position this time in hopes that it doesn't spiral as out of control as before. matt91486 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now that is something I can live with. If the article has no sourcing, has not asserted notability, then tie a piece of lead to it and kick it off the deck.  My concern is that this nomination, accidental as it was, just seemed to bundle some local conferences together and delete them, followed by the promise that others are on the way.  As at least one editor proffered, it sounded like a man with an agenda to get rid of all such articles (I didn't wholly buy that, but I can see why that came out), and another who basically said (let's delete irrelevant of of notability or WP:RS, those can just be started over.  That dog don't hunt!  The problem with these bundled noms is that you run into these issues.  I would wholly approve of your suggestion, with the note that in the future, you need to be more careful about what you are bundling together. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Matt's idea is a good compromise, but I wouldn't have a problem for deleted articles to be worked on in the drafts User:Davidwr provided or in a given sandbox for reinstatement down the road. I still am puzzled by the timing of this AfD though as progress has been made. However, if this compromise curtails endless back and forth debate than I'm for it. -- UWMSports (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Keep! ''' I find these articles to be helpful in understanding the relationships between communities within a conference. And the history of certain conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep all for now. I like the idea of coming back in 3-4 months and seeing how these are doing.  There seems to be agreement that some of these are well sourced, and others less so.  Further, I strongly suspect that most all of them could be well sourced given time and effort.  Hobit (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - High school conferences are not notable as the proof by BTB illustrates. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the evidence he provided in greater detail; many of the pieces don't really correlate to these articles. One, for example, was a speedy deletion of an article without context, NOT a notability-related deletion of a conference.  None of the others were consensus based decisions either. matt91486 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were a speedy deletion it clearly met some criteria for not belonging on Wiki. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you read what matt said that criteria was CSD A1. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article in that case was just poorly written, it had nothing to do with the subject matter. It was just a really bad article. matt91486 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being simply poorly written is not grounds for deletion, especially a speedy delete. I've been in many AfDs that are there based on sloppiness and the result is generally a keep. So clearly there must have been a good reason why Cincinnati Hills League was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Interstate Eight Conference, where the article was deleted for a lack of context so it could not be identified - in other words, a poorly written article. As for Cincinnati Hills League, we've been through this before, the admin is no longer active, so we are unable to figure out what he or she was thinking, because there is no set policy on high school athletic conferences.  I'm not sure why we keep going round and round in circles on that, though, because there clearly isn't a policy, otherwise we'd be citing it. All we have is non-consensus based, unilateral decisions. matt91486 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Keep! ''' As per Hobit. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like we have a split vote here and if that's the case then precedent should be the tiebreaker. Otherwise it appears this debate will go on forever. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not have a split vote, because this is not a vote. AfD is about finding consensus, not about taking a numeric tally of ballots.  In the absence of a consensus, history has typically been to let the articles stand, though there are some ideas on the table here that are between "keep" and "delete all". LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't keep having no consensus. I will go with the compromise Matt provided. Keep the two articles he's really worked hard on and if he feels he can get those deleted eventually up to code in his sandbox like UWM proposed then that's cool. But for now, other than those 2, the articles are nothing more than what's on the central list. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally would not have a problem with that, unless someone wants to make a case for another article. The only information I can see in those articles is information very easily restored.  Those other two should be kept.
 * Having said that, sometimes consensus is not reached, though I would like to think that Matt's suggestion is the most reasonable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see this whole thing going no consensus forever if a compromise isn't reached. I do think this is fair, hopefully others will too. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep all and consider merging, perhaps by state. The guidelines are of no use for something like this--the basic question is whether we want them in the encyclopedia or not--we can find sufficient reason for whichever we want.  I have no personal interest in the subject, but as others do, the default should be to keep. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. There is no doubt that all of these conferences have multiple reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable. --- RockMFR 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Only a few of them actually have sources. And the best one is Ohio Cardinal Conference, but those sources are from very local newspapers and websites as Mustard stated above. I think people are way too swayed by sources here on Wikipedia. Obviously a good article needs sources, but I think a lot of people feel if a topic has a couple sources that appear reliable it makes the topic automatically notable. I'm sure if you dig enough on anything you can find sources. For example, my church does a bake sale every year and notices of this are posted in several local newspapers. Even the local news channel does a story on it. So can I can site all of this and make a page on my church's bake sale? Of course not. You do enough digging you can find sources on just about everything. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think comparing high school athletics conferences to a bake sale is somewhat exaggerated; the high school conferences operate events 9 months of the year, as opposed to one afternoon. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We are "swayed" by sources when determining notablity because WP:N defines notability by sources. If you don't think that is correct, you should argue for a change of WP:N there, not here.  "Local" sources are perfectly acceptable.  Hobit (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be baby's point. What he is saying is true. Anything and everything exists on the Internet, so you can find sources on ANYTHING! Every church, grocery store and restaurant has a website these days. I'm going to make a page on my favorite pizzeria and then use its website as a source. I'll use Yahoo reviews as the second source to establish notability! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - these new pages aren't archived in our drafts for work on. If this closes with my compromise proposal, please move these two new additions to my user space so I can put them in the draft area. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I forget how close we are to a close out date, but I know we've got to be getting pretty close, and just now there is a decision to add two recently recreated articles. I am trying to assume good faith, but that has got to not be on the level ... I don't think it is very fair to anyone to start throwing new articles into the deletion debate at the last minute.  I am glad that someone is willing to take them on, but that note to the closing admin makes it seem like this is now a lock to delete.  I would want some time to look at the new articles that were just added for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't right to have two deleted articles reinstated while an AfD is going on. Those articles are bottom of the barrel and belong on this list. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - Says who? This just seems weird.  I have never seen a policy that says certain articles are off limits during an AfD.  I know articles can be locked during edit warring, and I've seen it very temporarily done during extreme vandalism, but otherwise I have never heard this.  If someone can point me to a policy, or even an essay, please educate me on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those articles have been deleted for TWO YEARS. Seems very shady to have them brought back today especially when those two were from my six examples of deleted articles. I'd have no problem if they were brought back if the consensus here is to keep, but not now as we're set to close this discussion. I believe this to be a blatant abuse of power by an admin who has the controls to bring back a dead article. It is wrong and definitely in bad faith. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with BTB here. Lonely, what's so hard about reading two more articles that maybe have 200 words combined? It is clearly a power play by the admin in question. Wikipedia is a group effort. Admins should know that more than anyone, but unfortunately I find more and more of them are here just to push their agendas. Bringing back two speedy deleted articles could have waited. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Greater Miami Conference article actually has some good information in it. It's unsourced at the moment, but it'd be valuable to have that as a resource for rewriting purposes. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two articles clearly fit the same profile as the other 27 I initially set aside as instant deletion candidates in the first AfD. I think at this point to avoid further back and forth we should go with Matt's compromise. I don't agree with Baby's all of methods and timing of things, but he is right about one thing. If we don't come to some sort of compromise there could be countless AfDs that keep ending in "no consensus". We need a resolution. Matt's compromise is the way to go. -- UWMSports (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all for now. While I'm sure many of these conferences are not notable, trying to determine the individual notability of over 25 articles at once is ridiculous. As Matt and others have demonstrated many conferences are notable. I think the best solution would be to nominate several conferences at a time over a period of time so each conference’s notability can be evaluated. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Eóin, there is a reason why Wikipedia offers bundled AfDs. I play in a softball league that has 20 different teams. Lets say all 20 teams have articles. They should be bundled together because it keeps things consistent. These conferences are all part of a system like those softball teams and should be deleted or kept together. There is no reason that I see as to why one conference should be kept or one conference should be deleted here. I've looked at these articles and none of them demonstrate a unique notability. In any event, the previous AfD saw 10+ articles broken off from the system that may have some notability that can be brought back individually. These 25+ should be deleted together. --Airtuna08 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eoin, if you feel some aren't notable then tell us which ones you feel aren't. It does not do anyone any good to say I'm sure many aren't notable but keep. UWM hit the nail on the head, we need some sort of decision. Tuna made a good point too. These conferences are part of a system. Those who really understand sports should realize that and not be scared off by many articles bundled together at once. It does keep things consistent. If you have 30 separate AfDs, then you could get 30 entirely different decisions simply based on who is present for the discussions. That would get really messy and open up a whole new can of worms. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * His point was mainly that we should have to go through Deletion Review, which isn't true. Deletion Review shouldn't be used as an excuse for too-broad bundling.  It's to fix mistakes; we shouldn't be deliberately creating mistakes because it's easier. matt91486 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could have 30 separate AfD decisions based on the notability of the each article. Airtuna08's softball league analogy is poor, by that reasoning all bands, whether they are notable or not, under a record label should be kept or deleted together just because they are part of a system. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Airtuna, Wikipedia has a guideline on avoiding these types of nominations Frank Anchor  Talk to me  21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, it's hard to tell without being centralized, who is in favor of my proposal of keeping the sourced articles and deleting the unsourced and permitting future recreation when they are written properly? I know several people are, on both the keep and delete sides, but it'd be nice to have that information in one place for the admin. matt91486 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, why don't you set up a separate section to get a quick yea/ney from users on your compromise. Might help the closing admin make their decision. -- UWMSports (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. matt91486 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep All for now. Attempts have been made over the past month or so to improve these articles and the articles should be given until at least October based on the improvements shown through the WikiProject.  The nomination violates WP:GAME. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I love how you just come into a situation without pre-knowledge of it and say my nomination is in bad faith. The WikiProject has stalled except for Matt's efforts. I'm willing to compromise and see if he can further improve those two articles he wants to keep. They can be given sometime and he can pass them off for peer review and what not to see if they are good enough to keep and good enough to warrant the re-creation of articles that have been or will be deleted. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise quick poll
Yes, AfD is not a vote, but with this discussion ranging far and wide as the last one did, let's employ the same methods.

Here is my compromise suggestion: Keep articles with sources (Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference - are there any others I'm unaware of?). Delete unsourced articles, with no prejudice for recreation when they are sourced and include more than a list of squads. Move the two newly created articles Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference to my userspace so I can put them with the other draft articles to be improved upon.

I know this isn't my ideal solution, or probably anyone else's, but it should solve the biggest problem that people have with the articles here. Please just sign underneath.


 * Comment the other articles should be redirected to the conference list, rather than deleted, to preserve their histories so those wishing to expand them have somewhere to start Frank Anchor  Talk to me  04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Second that, it will help spruce up the central list. -- FancyMustard ( talk ) 04:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given those redirects and keeping of history thus far, I'm fine with this compromise. Deletion unwarranted at this time. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will support redirecting (which was an alternative all along). I will not support deletion under these conditions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you'll have a list that is way to long. The material won't be lost. Offer your help to Matt to help upgrade the drafts he'll have. -- Burp The Baby   (Talk)  20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the list will not be any longer than it is. The content of the articles already exists on the list.  go read what a redirect is before making such outlandish statements  Frank Anchor  Talk to me  21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frank, redirection is a better way to go than deleting NewYork483 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, redirecting is fine for me. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank, see WP:CIVIL. Baby, a redirect is not a merge. --FourteenClowns (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT
 * matt91486 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * UWMSports (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Burp The Baby   (Talk)  00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FourteenClowns (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (compromise ends the madness)
 * FancyMustard ( talk ) 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank Anchor Talk to me  04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NewYork483 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Provided that the articles are redirected and not deleted, otherwise I oppose this idea)
 * Airtuna08 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AGAINST
 * Baseballfan789 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NewYork483 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is not a vote

I think its time for this AfD to be close and the compromise based on the % of people willing to accept it to be put into effect by the closing admin. It's been a couple days since anyone has commented, so lets end this. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.