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 Keep - no consensus to delete. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic High School Athletic Association[edit]

Catholic High School Athletic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Besides the fact that this is just a list, and a lot of the links are to external sources and not even to articles on Wikipedia, we don't do articles on individual school leagues. Corvus cornix 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We certainly do articles on individual sports leagues; any blanket statement such as the one made in the nomination would have to backed up by a Wikipedia policy statement or a demonstration of consensus on the issue, but neither exist. This article makes a clear claim of notability as the largest such league in the United States, and also addresses the multitude of professional athletes that have played in the league, all of which demonstrates notability. Alansohn 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then I can write articles on the Hayward Area Athletic League, the East Bay Athletic League, the Mission Valley Athletic League, ad infinitum? Corvus cornix 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, my God, we do have articles on those leagues. That is just wrong. Corvus cornix 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the disruptive point. This article makes strong claims of notability in terms of size and athletic participation. The notability standard has been met here. Alansohn 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What disruptive point, pray tell? Corvus cornix 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The answering your own question schtick. But I agree, there was no point. And there is still no response to the distinct claims of notability made in the article. Alansohn 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That wasn't a shtick, that was a clear disgust at having typed those in, hitting save page and finding blue links. Corvus cornix 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll take your word for it. But it sure completely undermines the claim that "we don't do articles on individual school leagues". Alansohn 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages". Also please nominate (and delete) East Bay, Mission Valley, and any article of the same ilk.--victor falk 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per Victor falk. Way too many external links, way too little actual encyclopedic content. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but get rid of the external links...just make them black type. This thing can obviously be cleaned up by someone with more knowledge on the subject, but it seems like it would meet WP:ORG if reliable secondary sources can be found. It's not the primary focus of this article, but it looks like it's been a player in some controversy . - Smashville 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles on school leagues are & should be a standard feature of WP. They are much much better than the usually inappropriate attempts to write articles on the individual athletic teams. DGG (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and then rewrite the article. Add more history about the organization. OTOH, since the article doesn't even say what sports are played, maybe it is listcruft. I assume it isn't netball, cricket or chess to name the sports that were played at the Catholic school across the road from where I lived.jonathon 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It should be re-written but it is the largest Catholic atletic league in the country.Callelinea 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have articles on sports leagues, but rarely on high school leagues, fails to meet WP:ORG, and has no Reliable sources. Jbeach ^sup 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define "rarely". We have at least one for every state in the US. Which means I'm changing my vote to a straight keep. Citing precedent...I believe in this case, it is a valid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to point out that we seem to have an article on almost every other major high school athletic association in the US. There is a category on High school sports associations in the United States with 64 articles...considering there are only 50 states, I don't see how "rare" that is. Smashville 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of them listed are state ones with hundreds and hundreds of schools and many sources, this one has not so many and few sources. I found some very local ones (county) that I'm likely going to AFD or prod. We need to have a cut-off for this Jbeach ^sup 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete all those light blue ELs per EL policy. —ScouterSig 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category It appears that the assertion of notability is based on the school membership and alumni rather than the Association itself. The assertion of being the largest such organization might or might not support notability, depending upon whether the size differential is sufficient to make this Association stand out from others; in addition, this assertion is not supported by citation (a minor but valid criticism). The conversion to category would automatically drop out those schools for which there is no article presently. One problem I see is that a fraction of the schools in the listing mention the Association in their articles, let alone provide a supporting citation to indicate that they are a member. This is prima facie evidence for low/no notability of the Association, in my opinion, as it is insufficiently notable to be mentioned as an important fact with respect to member schools. Categorization does not obviate the need for evidence supporting organization inclusion, of course, but that evidence could/should be in each member article. Also, the 'notable alumni' is an interesting list but derivative in that the only reason why the people are alumni if the Association is because they are alumni of member schools; categorization would drop out this transitive association as inclusion criteria would designate schools as suitable category members, not persons. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:36, 1 November 2007 (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.