Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dakota Class A high school track


 * 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 merge all information into main article and delete all individual sports articles. Matthew UND (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota Class A high school track


Non notable high school sports leagues, fails WP:N Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to North Dakota High School Activities Association as all these articles contain are championship history Corpx 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into North Dakota High School Activities Association; not only these but the others linked from the template. TerriersFan 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - in a state no larger than North Dakota, the lack of professional sports teams makes school teams like these widely followed and important to the state --Matthew UND (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that they all deserve articles on their own, especially with the little content they have merge and redirect all the articles from the template to North Dakota High School Activities Association Jaranda wat's sup 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —TerriersFan 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to the three nominated, all of the "Class xyz" sub articles in NDHSAA should be considered part of this discussion. If the school association's sports are important to the state, I think the level of detail required would stop at articles about each sport; i.e. keep North Dakota high school football and merge the four "football" sub articles into that article. John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that idea. I've actually always thought that breaking each sport into all of these different classes was overkill. --Matthew UND (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect as above. Eusebeus 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect. I support John Vandenberg's idea. If someone wants to add enough encyclopedic information that it would be better for a particular sport to stand on its own in an article that demonstrates notability, it makes sense to do so. With a merge, I think any editor is capable of reversing the merge to do just that. An article with much more content and the citations to demonstrate notability would be different from what we have here. Noroton 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone care who won the championship for some sport in 1903 or even 1983? I don't think that's encyclopedic. I'd pare each of these lists until they're shorter. That way they can all fit into the larger article. Noroton 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one cares who one a championship in 1903 or 1983,then shouldn't articles about the 1903 and 1983 World Series be deleted???? Leopold Samsonite 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite
 * Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough: I try to be inclusive, and certainly just because I'm bored by a subject doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the encyclopedia. I wouldn't oppose an article about the 1903 championship in any sport in North Dakota if it demonstrated verifiability and common notability requirements. In other words, some editor could write an article (not just a list), cite sources to meet WP:V verification and do enough to satisfy WP:Notability, and not only would I support that, but hardly any Wikipedia editors would support deleting it. A list of state championship winners going back that far, even combined with other lists of championship winners in other sports, is really directory material violating WP:DIRECTORY, and I'm voting "Merge" more out of the hope and expectation that there's enough enthusiasm for North Dakota sports out there that the resulting merged article will garner enough prose content and citations to make for an acceptable encyclopedic article. In that kind of an article, a list of championship winners would do what lists like that are supposed to do in Wikipedia: contribute to understanding the subject in ways that prose doesn't do as well. When these things stand alone, without even some other encyclopedia article to give them meaning, there's justification for deleting them under the way we've been working on Wikipedia. I hate to see work go to waste and I'm sympathetic to any editor who puts in the time, so I hope an encyclopedic article results. Noroton 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.   —Noroton 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - looks like this is going to be a merge so we need to discuss how to do it. If we simply join the tables together, then we will get an unmanageable, world-record page length. Any thoughts? TerriersFan 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think one big article that groups together all of these lists would be really ugly and difficult to navigate. Personally, I think it would make sense to group information by sport. Instead of four football articles, merge all of that information into one football article. Instead of two basketball articles, one would be better. The only problem that pops up with that idea is that we currently only have a Class A track article...no class B track article and no generic track article. I'm not sure how we should handle this particular article.
 * This is what I would suggest...
 * Merge North Dakota Class A high school baseball and North Dakota Class B high school baseball into North Dakota high school baseball.
 * Merge North Dakota Class A high school basketball and North Dakota Class B high school basketball into North Dakota high school basketball.
 * Merge North Dakota Class AAA high school football, North Dakota Class AA high school football, North Dakota Class A high school football, and North Dakota 9-man high school football into North Dakota high school football.
 * Merge North Dakota Class A high school volleyball and North Dakota Class B high school volleyball into North Dakota high school volleyball.
 * Merge North Dakota Class A high school wrestling and North Dakota Class B high school wrestling into North Dakotahigh school wrestling.
 * Keep North Dakota high school hockey and North Dakota high school soccer as standalone articles.
 * That just leaves North Dakota Class A high school track. I know the above proposal may not be perfect, but it would be much better than the status quo, would be a compromise between deleting all of these articles and keeping all of these articles, and would provide a starting point from which interested editors could work on individual sports. --Matthew UND (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, but there is no only limited support for multiple articles, with the exception of the way forward proposed by Noroton . To avoid a terrible long article we need to decide how to cut back the information to manageable proportions. TerriersFan 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please share your proposal, TerriersFan. Personally, I'm not terribly worried about keeping championship histories for every one of these sports. --Matthew UND (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if we can gain a consensus for the elimination of these long tables then we have a way forward since a single article is feasible. My suggestion is to replace the tables with textual summaries, picking out the highlights. TerriersFan 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - For what it's worth, I'm not sure you're correct in saying there is no support for multiple articles. John Vandenberg seems to have introduced that idea and several of us seem to agree with that proposal. --Matthew UND (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If other users think we need to merge all of these smaller lists/articles into just one big list/article, I've been thinking about how we can put that big article together. Please take a look at User:MatthewUND/North Dakota High School Activities Association to see what I've come up with. I haven't removed any information from the lists, but I've tried to combine tables so that each sport just has one table. --Matthew UND (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - nice work and certainly a big improvement. However, I still question whether we need to preserve the details which seem more suitable for the organisations web site. My suggestion is text based sections. An example might be:
 * "The first competition in the Class A girls section was in 19xx which was won by ABC. The current holders are DEF, who won in 20xx. GHI have the most titles with xy closely followed by JKL with yz. Notably between 19xx and 19xx MNO won for five consecutive years."


 * In many ways this would be more useful since patterns and interesting features are not obvious to the reader in the present table format. TerriersFan 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If MatthewUND feels strongly about it, I don't object to his creation, but I hope he'll consider what his purpose is for his article and how that relates to an encyclopedic purpose (does this relate to some other encyclopedic article?). Can we get some encyclopedic prose in here? I think TerriersFan's idea is a good start. Noroton 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment TerriersFan has some good ideas. I'm also glad that you think my proposal is an improvement over what we've had with all of the individual articles. Because I like TerriersFan's ideas so much, I would propose that we go with my condensed lists grouped onto one page like I've done, but also add a brief text section like the one TerriersFan is talking about for each sport. That we, we could have the exhaustive list and a summary. Best of both worlds? I think so...let me know what you think. --Matthew UND (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just finished merging all the tables into User:MatthewUND/North Dakota High School Activities Association. Take a look and let me know what you think. We should also add some summary text for each sport. I hope this proposed solution will be acceptable to other editors. If so, we could move my new NDHSAA article out to the mainspace and delete all of the individual articles. --Matthew UND (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am happy to go along with the compromise proposed above. Once summary text, along the lines I suggested, has been added for each sport then this can be moved across and the AfD closed out. TerriersFan 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I finished with the summaries. I think we're probably good to go now. --Matthew UND (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no objections to Matthew's merger.Noroton 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - good job. Go for it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerriersFan (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I moved my version of the article out to the mainspace. Now we should decide if the individual sport articles should be deleted or made into redirects. After we decide that, I suppose we could close down this AfD. I'm glad that we've been able to come to a very good outcome with this AfD. In this particular case, one big article seems to be much better than many little articles. --Matthew UND (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no doubt; the individual articles should be deleted. The case for redirects would be if the titles were likely search terms and plainly these are not. Consequently making redirects would serve no purpose. TerriersFan 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. --Matthew UND (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2007 (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.