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 of the debate was keep. Petros471 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior sports teams are rarely notable and do not meet any of the notability criteria for inclusion on WP. There is no reason why this page is any different - only notable teams should be included - so I would like to see the removal of ALL Junior/Juvenile and Children's teams that do not have genuine notability. How can any team in a Junior B/Juvenile/AAA Hockey League be notable? These teams do not compete in significant tournaments (though I'm sure their Moms and Dads and very proud) and are not professional. WP is not intended to be used as a catalogue of things that exist but an encyclopedia of things which are notable. This, and all the other Junior teams, are not notable and should be removed on mass. At best they could be mentioned on the article about the league - if the league is genuinely notable enough to warrant its own page - most will not. Robertsteadman 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For information - the first nomination was closed early due to too many comments, spamming by someone trying to protect the page and personal abuse being meted out at those wanting the page deleted. Robertsteadman 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ... exactly. Let's leave it at generalised "personal abuse", without pointing fingers anywhere, huh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse was in one direction only. Robertsteadman 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Possible Delete - utterly pointless and has no place on WP. Robertsteadman 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. You wrote the nomination — why are you adding a "vote" as well? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realised I couldn't. Many oters AfDs have votes by the nominator - I though that was what was needed. Robertsteadman 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was something started not so long ago by people concerned that their "votes" wouldn't count. Since votes aren't counted here, full stop, it's a rather useless effort, but it hasn't died out yet. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Possible Keep. Train wreck of a talk page from the first AFD is here. WP:HOCKEY is working on fleshing out all notable hockey teams into articles, and this team is the biggest junior hockey team in a city of over 100,000 people. For those unfamiliar with ice hockey, "junior" has nothing to do with children, it is for players 16-20 years old and is responsible for feeding professional teams, similar to Rookie League baseball (the team is a rough equivalent of Gulf Coast Mets), which has not been nominated for AFD. I suspect a bad-faith nom as well in violation of WP:POINT. BoojiBoy 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - not at all - I nominated it first time because I do not believe ANY Junior sports should be on WP unless they are notable - as the AfD was closed without resol;ution it seems sensible, and needed, to re-open. I thinbk the kidie baseball teams should also go. Robertsteadman 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I question the good faith of this nomination. The nominator seems to be acting out a vendatta the past few days. If this second request is actually taken seriously I cast a KEEP vote. ccwaters 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please assume good faith. Your "questioning" helps nothing here, and actively hinders the possibility of a civil discussion. Don't throw gratuitous nastiness. And you don't cast a KEEP vote, because AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no evidence of bad faith here, and nothing even remotely resembling WP:POINT. Your "strongest possible keep" in reply to "strongest possible delete" is rather more mocking than it needs to be, too. Please try to be a little more civil here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um... my "strongest possible keep" was first. BoojiBoy 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ... ah. My apologies! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Every professional sports team is notable, no matter the level: see Kingsport Mets, or even the mighty Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers. I strongly suggest Robert settle down a bit. I agree that DMighton shouldn't have left messages on all of our talk pages, but a simple notice on WP:HOCKEY would've sufficed. That said, though he did spam, he didn't say "come and vote keep." Verbatim, from my Talk page: "Hello, a user has decided that he does not want us placing hockey stubs on Wikipedia to expand later into teams. In particular he doesn't like Junior teams... I was wondering if you could please voice your opinion." What's more, this professional hockey team is no less notable than many of the high schools we have on Wikipedia, and every one of those are kept. This has been copied and pasted from the previous AfD.  RasputinAXP  c 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that professinal sports teams might warrant an article - but Jun ior B teams are not professional teams - they are below college level ice hockey - they are not notable. On the basis of your own comments you should have voted delete.Robertsteadman 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJunior hockey is not a true amateur (the opposite of professional) system. Hence the name change of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to Canadian Hockey Association to Hockey Canada (Hockeys ruling body in Canada). There are basic regulated salary systems and contract signings and contractual agreements in all levels of Junior hockey. DMighton 04:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Its a junior B hockey team. There a 20 Junior B hockey leagues (each with about 10-15 teams) in Canada alone. That's so far below the level of notability requirement for sports team as to be not even funny. That's way below Rookie League baseball, of af2. -- GWO
• Keep per my reasons in the original AfD nom for this article. Agent 86 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia:Notability is not policy; it is not even a guideline. It is an essay. That is the only reason given for this article not to exist. A number of Ice Hockey contributors have voiced their opinion on this and the previous AFD. Although some ice hockey project members think it might make more sense to just have the information on the league page instead, none have expressed an opinion that the information should be deleted. The article does meet the policies of Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research, so I don't see what the big deal is in letting it stay. -- JamesTeterenko 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge into a single league article gets my vote. 20 league articles seems proportionate, 300 individual team articles, not so much. When we write an article about the army, we but don't break it down to platoon level. --- GWO
    • Comment - a sensible comprimise. And vbery well expressed. As long as the leagues ARE notable. Robertsteadman 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that was our original decision, but we had an admin a couple months ago tell us to create individual articles for each of the teams because we couldn't use team logos and such in league pages. DMighton has put several hundred hours of work into carrying this out. I personally wouldn't have a HUGE problem with keeping it at league level only, but the only reason WP:HOCKEY has created all these articles was due to a specific request from an admin so as not to violate WP:FUP. Several hundred hours of work later, those same articles are up for deletion. It's not fair to DMighton's work to delete it all, especially considering that the creation of all the team articles was essentially imposed upon the project from above (and, as I mentioned, I still believe the article is notable and should be kept). BoojiBoy 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Akin to the Rookie leagues - each and every team of which has an article - and the numerous amateur leagues in baseball (the Cape Cod League is averages a few hundred spectators at best during its games, and even some teams there have articles), the Junior B leagues are all feeders into Junior A and college programs. The mere fact that nom has, in both this debate and the previous one, equated these league with kiddie squads demonstrates that he has little idea what these leagues are about and who plays in them, and therefore can have little enough grasp on their notability. As far as nom's bad faith goes, his threat to nominate all junior league teams (the highest level of amateur competition in Canada) for AfD provides telling evidence. RGTraynor 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : There is clear intent to flesh this out into a more complete article. Apart from that, I happen to think that Junior B teams are notable enough for inclusion. -- ArglebargleIV 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per all above. Expandable stub that will be expanded. BryanG^(talk) 23:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Two things - first: Keep as per my arguments from the first AfD. If DMighton's research yeilds a quality article, then Wikipedia is all the better for it. Let him finish his work.
• Second: Comment - Robertsteadman: Please stop commenting on every vote. You have made your position abundantly clear, and there is nothing to be gained by arguing with every person who disagrees with you. I would suggest that you take a step back and let the AfD process run its course. Resolute 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sports bore me to death. I've only watched 2 sports contests in my entire 45 years although I've unwillingly attended dozens. I have no interest in any sport league, minor major junior senior whatever. Nonetheless, Wikipedia isn't written to please me. It's an encyclopedia that aims to have a great breadth and depth of knowledge from all over the world. If there's room for Ollie, Iowa, a town of 240 people, I think there's room for this article and also for the other teams in all the junior leagues in Canada. For those who insist that this team has no notability, perhaps you were thinking of me, and thank you kindly because, yes, for me, it is absolutely non-notable. But as others on here have pointed out, the team has real notability for, at the very least, the 100,000 people in Thunder Bay. Interlingua ^talk 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well said. Were I to be given complete control over what Wikipedia was allowed to include, there's no way I'd allow articles on every single damn Pokemon creature every created or every single walk-on character in some Star Wars quasi-canon fictional writeup. That being said, there seem to be a lot of folks who disagree with me. "Wikipedia isn't written to please me" is an aphorism that deserves to be set in granite. RGTraynor 06:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: - Absolutely- there is much to be removed from WP - many computer games and characters, many minor and insignificant people and many non-notable sports teams. I totally agree that there is too much that is non-notable and, as editors, we should be working to improve WP not maintain that which does not deserve space. Robertsteadman 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In which case you should deal with the various Wikiprojects and WP policy and guideline pages to change consensus to explicitly reflect your views, and failing that, accept the prevailing consensus and move on. RGTraynor 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: or perhaps you, or someone else could explain how this youth team playing in a juvenile league are notable. Simply saying they are notable is not an arguement - please spell it out, how are this team of non-professional teenagers a team or any note? They are below Junior A and are, in fact, well below Rookie Ice Hockey.... If some evidence of genuine notability can be provided I will support a KEEP vote - but none has been offered. At best this should be an article about the league (which doesn't need every team's crest) but I would suggest that a junior/juvenile/midget league is lacking in notability too. So please, how are they notable? Robertsteadman 16:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As several editors now have commented, junior leagues are (1) not "juvenile," (2) the highest level of amateur hockey competition in Canada, (3) at the least comparable to American college hockey, since around five times as many NHL players are alumni of junior league teams than are alumni of college squads, and (4) at roughly the same age range as college players, which are explicitly notable per WP:BIO. Leaving aside that there is no such thing as "Rookie Ice Hockey", none of this is anything other editors have failed to tell you. If you don't agree that junior leagues should be notable, I refer you to my previous advice to work on changing consensus on notability criteria, but either you are interested in learning about how hockey is structured or you are not. RGTraynor 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: They play in a Junior JUVENILE and Midget league. I am working on notabailty and have already opened negotitations about getting some universal WP guideliens/policy on sports teams. Robertsteadman 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The way you bolded Juvenile makes me wonder if you knew what juvenile was at the time of writing it. So I will fill in the blanks... Junior is 16-20 year old players... Juvenile is 18-20 year olds... and Midget is 16-18 year olds. You've failed to mention that the league is a Junior "B" league with a multi-tiered regular season and only the games played by the 4 Junior teams mean anything. Also, you've failed to mention that the midget and juvy teams are only mentioned in passing in an article that is not in question here. But, just for the sake of remaining civil... I'll assume that you just haven't read anyone else's keep/delete reasons or the comments left on this AfD. DMighton 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is apparent you didn't read into it or didn't research it on any of the google hits you found last time you AfD'd this article. It is not a problem, I will explain. This JUNIOR league is multi-tiered during the regular season. As I can see, you seem to like euro football, so you might be able to understand this system. 3 different levels of hockey compete in interleague action... Junior "B", Juvenile, and Midget AAA... at the end of a roughly 40 game season... the 4 Junior "B" teams are the only ones allowed to compete in the playoffs... the playoff champion competes out west for the Keystone Cup. The Minor level teams compete in their perspective All-Ontario playdowns and no longer have anything to do with the TBJBHL... their results in the league do not enhance or disrupt their seeding in the Ontario minor playoff systems and are only used as "filler" for the Junior teams and as a way to warm up for the playoffs for the Minor teams. The Juvenile and Midget teams have not been included in the TBJBHL article other than in passing and have little to do with the Northern Hawks and therefore have nothing to do with this AfD. Hopefully this helps you. DMighton 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) -- Also, Junior A, B, and C classifications are only partially based off of skill level... in fact, they are based mostly off size of the centre they play out of and what league is closest to their town. As well, Junior B teams could be competative in Junior A or Junior C, as Junior C could be competative in Junior B and even a few could survive in Junior A... examples of successful league switching is all over the hockey world... the Barrie Colts, Markham Waxers, Orangeville Crushers, and Listowel Cyclones just to name few involved in an uncountable amount of league moves. Even the Bradford Rattlers just jumped directly from Junior C to Junior A. DMighton 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As virtually everyone else has observed, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I do not feel that an article about a famous person's cat, or some piece of art commissioned by a theatre in Nottingham are notable either. However, I accept that there are others who may believe differently, no matter how small a percentage of users may ever find such articles useful. Resolute 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notability is NOT in the eye of the beholder - that is a nonsense. The examples you gace are very poor - the cat is refered to in probbaly the most famous book of the 20th century, it is, quite probably, the most famous cat of the 20th century (certainly top 5). The artwork was commissioned from one of the UK's leading contemporary artists - not a 16-20 year kid learning the ropes. Notability is notability - kiddie sport is kiddie sport. Robertsteadman 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes, kiddie sport is kiddie sport -- and this, given that it involves mostly people over the age of 18, is in no way kiddie sport. I don't want to become yet another person to comment that you obviously did no research before nominating this, so I won't. BoojiBoy 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The cat is only famous because of its owner. Anne Frank is notable, her cat is not, as it never did anything other than simply exist as Anne Frank's pet. By this argument, is the pet of any famous person notable? Maybe I will litter Wikipedia with articles about atheletes pets. Similaraly, the Sky Mirror itself is not notable. The artist may be, but at best, this piece of art belongs in that artist's article. What historical significance does it have? As I said, notability is in the eye of the beholder. I can accept that what you believe is notable is. All everyone here is asking is that you respect our beliefs. Resolute 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Clearly notable. Needs expansion. -- Samir धर्म 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I strongly agree with Boojiboy and ccwaters... as well I agree with Rasputin... and I thank Interlingua for valuable insight. DMighton 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, but needs expansion. No less notable than the Macon Trax or any than team in the low level SPHL. --FrankCostanza 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should have said this sooner, but I've been so wrapped up in other stuff... mostly logging statistics and earning a paycheck... In the hockey community, especially in Canada where there is no official allowance of sports scholarships and in the US where Canadian athletes almost never get half-scholarships due to their Canadian citizenship... Junior hockey, even at its lowest levels, is considered to be either compatible or higher calibre and higher in importance than College/University hockey (I'm not saying that Uni Hockey is unimportant -- but let's face it, a kid doesn't grow saying he wants to play U of G over his local Junior C club -- at least not where I'm from). This "Kiddie team" stuff has just got me thinking... Junior hockey teams are not and have never been considered lower in the pecking order than scholastic hockey... and this is a widely regarded belief in the hockey community. Junior hockey is to hockey as College sports is to Basketball or American Football. DMighton 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep.
  • This level of team is notable. For example, the Sarnia Bees have 10 NHL alumni players.[1]. The Pembroke Lumber Kings have 40 NHL alumni. [2] The Stayner Siskins have only 1 NHL alumni [3], and yet the team has a major influence on the town. Even without being a feeder system for the NHL, this level of hockey is notable, as many of these teams draw large crowds, are major influences in their communities, and are large business enterprises. I don't understand why this Go-Bus station is notable, but for transportation/train fans, these type of Go stations are important. Many of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey members have stated that they believe these Jr C, B, and A teams are notable hockey enthusiasts. Anyone wanting to work in the hockey industry in Ontario would be very interested in learning about these teams. Fans hoping to spot the next Gretzky seek out these teams. (Gretzky was playing Jr.B hockey less than 2 years before he played in the NHL). Heck, look at all the fuss made over the Stall family and it's easy to see why fans would be interested in where players come from before the NHL.
  • As for the 'spam' issue of leaving messages on talk pages of members in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, I believe Wikipedia:Assume good faith applies. I did exactly the same thing with Talk:World Junior Ice Hockey Championships when I put on merge tags and proposed a rename. The idea was to get input from the people with knowledge and interest in the subject. I'm sure that DMighton just did the same. ColtsScore 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another point
  • As per Wikipedia:Notability (athletes)

The current guidline for living athletes is as follows:
"Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." These are paid athletes, and they play at a level equivalent to U.S. college teams. It makes sense then, that their teams would be notable too.
That's the current policy.
There is discussion about changing the athletes' notability policy to make it more restrictive, Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), if anyone is interested in commenting. ColtsScore 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not a current policy. That is a current proposal. If accepted, I suspect it would only be a guideline, not a policy. -- JamesTeterenko 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: We just decided that this article should be keept[4]. It is a notable hockey team on the junior level. It doesn't violate any rules on content, so let it stay. Briememory 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you, but that first AFD wasn't a keep argument, it closed with no consensus. BoojiBoy 21:36, 22 June 2006 (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.