Deletion of Blanchard Valley Conference (2nd nomination)

Comment: per above, also |pointing out other articles that were deleted in a similar fashion is not a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

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 , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Fails Notability. Just because a couple users are looking to upgrade the articles that does not make them notable.  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PRETTY)

Comment: I am not convinced that all of these nominees are in violation of , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is not a matter of !  There are ''some'' articles with references in .  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PRETTY||WP:RS)