Talk:Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Older talk

If a JUNIOR B Ice Hockey team shall I add the reults of my son's pre-school sports day to WP? There is no notability - this is purely adding info for the sake of it. This page should be deleted - and a speedy delete. Robertsteadman 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert, get off your high horse. If you want to add your son's pre-school sports team... that is your own business. I find your mockingly condescending opinion without cause, I wonder if you have any significant knowledge of Junior hockey what-so-ever.

Well, is it notable? Yes. They are a team that has played in the Thunder Bay area for a long time. I have at least 4 years of stats for them and a history. It will be much more notable once I've gotten to writing it. It is currently a stub only because I've had to do about 200 other sports teams in the past 2 months. This teams is also a team that is eligible to compete for the Keystone Cup which is a national event and has competed for it on multiple occasions. I plan to expand this article in about a week or two. DMighton 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not notable - no high horse needed. I will AfD instead then - so please don't bother reverting. A Junior B League team is NOT notable - its that simple. Robertsteadman 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob... it is quite evident that you know nothing of hockey. DMighton 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So, personal attack rather than reasoned arguement..... I do know about ice hockey - enough to know this is a non-notable team and there are many other similar pages simply filling WP space that should be removed. Robertsteadman 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you do not. DMighton 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I know enought to know that Junior B teams shouldnm't be on WP. Please refrain from your childish personl attacks. Robertsteadman 06:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a quick resume of their notability (rather than merely personal attacking people) and why WP space should be used to include Junior B teams rather than simple mentions on the league page (if THAT even deserves space.... ). Robertsteadman 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but this isn't a messageboard. You can tell me I am attacking you for defending my stance all you want, but I still do not see it your way. I am wasting valuable time on you that will no longer be wasted. Chew and moan all you want -- A stub has a purpose, leave it be. DMighton 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a stub requires to be about someone or something that is notable - Google comes up with just 40 results fopr "Thunder Bay Northern Hawks" - including a mirror. So... notability please? If they are notable there's not a problem but if they're not then they should not be in WP. Robertsteadman 08:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the final message I wish to convey to you... seriously. Search for "Northern Hawks"... there is a further explanation on the AfD page. You will see probably close to 500 hits that are related to the team. Including press reports from Alberta which is on the other side of the continent and about a 4 day drive away. If this does not curb your deletionism, I cannot help you. DMighton 08:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And still not a hint of notability. This, and all similar articles, should go. Please showe their notability or accept that junior B and similar teams, in all sports, have no place in an encyclopedia.Robertsteadman 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to convince you of notability, as you do not own this wiki. You are merely an editor, same as we are. Several arguments have already been presented on the AfD page and in my reply to you on your talk page. I would refer you back to them rather than waste my time in a circular argument. Also, I still do not accept that articles about a cat, a traffic circle or a sculpture in a theatre are notable either, but I am not demanding that you convince me otherwise. Resolute 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the subject in hand - youth and kiddie sports team who are not notable. The clsoing admin on the AfD agrees that merging would be more appropriate than all these kiddie teams having their own page - why can you not see that they are not notable but merely a youth tea,m (the same as an Under-21 football team)? Robertsteadman 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that I suggested the merge in my role as a 'mere editor', same as us all. My opinion is the matter should hold no further weight than anyone else. Petros471 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will again refer you to our arguments on the AfD pages and your talk page. You are free to ask the same questions over and over and over again until you are blue in the face, Robert. The answer is not going to change, and nobody can force you to use an open mind for once. A this point, there is nothing left to do but request that this merge request be denied. If there is no opposition from any other users reading this, I will remove the tags later tonight or tomorrow. Resolute 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HOLD BACK! - this debate needs to be widened rather than closed off. To close it is VERY premature. Please do not force your opinion. I suggest we put it to a RFC and get a wider community input. Robertsteadman 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I support closing this discussion unless there is an objection other than Robertsteadman. And Robert, if you really want to take it to RFC, go ahead. I suggest that before you do so, you find at least one other person that believes it should go that far. -- JamesTeterenko 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see here where user:Petros471 supports a merger also - that is where the link for the discussion originally went.... What would be the problem with an RFC? There are two entrenched positions.... RFC seems a logical step. There is not an iverwhelming consensus to keep as it is and not merge -even if those supporting taht position are throwing their weight around more, using peronal attcks and bulldozing decisions. Let's open up to a genuine wider debate and see whether WP, as a whole, really weants articles about youth teams. Robertsteadman 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to give my thoughts on this matter, and I do feel that a line must be drawn and that this team is certainly not notable for WP. If you think hard enough, every minor or children's league is notable to someone. Notable items here need to be notable to a wide region, state, country, not just a city. I think keeping info about the leagues is fine, I have no problem with that at this point. The junior team articles I have seen so far just say the team name and the city, even though it is already stated in the league article. And they will not get any bigger or better unless a lot of unnotable cruft is placed in, which is the last thing that WP needs.

And as for the wikiproject, you don't have to obey to the original standards. A wikiproject is designed to give a community for editors to collaborate on a subject, it's not meant to be official policy. I am stunned that an article like this is kept, it is not even close to being notable outside the area of the team, and should be removed, no doubt about it. --Burgwerworldz 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did "drop by", thank you. I see another example of Rob's POV-bs is playing again. It is a stub... like usual to a comment like this... I say let it grow. We are not talking about Minor or Childrens teams here... as we've said a million times... and this is also a team that is known across the country as they have competed for the Western Canadian title, the Keystone Cup (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario), 4 times in recent years. But it isn't like I've said this 2 or 3 times before over the course of 2 AfDs and a Merge Request. DMighton 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? They're a youth team and have competed in a youth tournament - notability? None. All the info offered could easily be contained in the league article - there is no need for separate pages....Robertsteadman 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's all take a step back and go for an RFC - isn't that a sensible solution? Robertsteadman 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You already tried arguing in this Wikiproject, and the editors haven't agreed with your POV. You went for an AfD, and were shot down in flames. At this point, anything else is venue shopping and certainly tendentious. In your shoes, I'd accept the decision (if, obviously, not the judgment) of my fellow editors and turn my attentions elsewhere. Ravenswing 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting our facts straight

So what is the age group of this league? Can we get a firm number? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

17-20 with a general limit of 4 16 year olds. DMighton 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So the folks in this league, for the most part, could play pro. It's not a "kids" league or a "youth" team as implied by others? Is the league professional? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Substantively correct, despite Robert's persistent attempts at characterizing hockey junior leagues as "kiddie" or "juvenile" teams. Since players can play in the NHL at age 18 (and do so in European pro leagues and minor leagues at younger than that), there's considerable overlap, and many players have played for junior teams and NHL or other pro teams in the same season. Ravenswing 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But that is to misrepresent the team - the team is an amateur youth team. To make out it is anything else is, to be blunt, dishonest. Robertsteadman 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(sighs) By that standard, so are all college teams, in the same age group and paying their players even less, but you aren't advocating that college teams are non-notable ... surprising, really, given how far fewer college alums make the NHL as compared to junior alums. That being said, whatever the reasons are behind your lack of understanding are murky, and probably not relevant. Ravenswing 08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They "could" play pro - but they ARE NOT Pros - they are a youth team - not sure what your definition of youth is but 20 and under is a youth team in most sport- - as has been agreed - te equivalent of an Under-21 soccer team or, I guess, a Colts Rugby Union side. Robertsteadman 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

North America is not "most of the world". Wikipedia allows for cultural and regional differences. In the case of Junior B hockey specifically, 16 year olds will no longer be allowed to participate following next season. The age restrictions will be 17-20 beginning 2007-08. Whether the league is pro or not is not a simple question. I tend to think of Junior hockey as being amateur, but the NCAA has differing opinions depending on the level (ie: Tier I is considered pro under their draconian rules, but Tier II, which includes Jr B is not). Regardless, I do not believe this is an important factor in arguing whether these team articles should exist. Certantly player bios would fail WP:BIO, but with the teams themselves, we are talking organizations that are integral parts of their communities, some of which date back to the early days of hockey. Articles about these teams are as notable as articles about schools, roads, even the counties that also exist within and around these communities. Resolute 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the age range for this level of hockey is roughly the same as college sport, which agreed to be notable. An age based argument is not a valid reason against the existance of these articles. Resolute 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said I supported all college sport being included - only that which is genuinely notable should be included. If a Junior B team has done something genuinely notable it could be included as could a college team, otherwise these are youth teams and have no place on WP. Robertsteadman 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging would be a good solution, I do think a RfC should be used here, just some mediation. --Burgwerworldz 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is the direction this process will ultimately head in. I would ask, however, why do you favor a merge? Resolute 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• What this boils down to is that one editor (that has been banned in the past, no less) is unable to accept the consensus of the community and is hell-bent on taking this as far as he can in an effort to impose his will upon the majority. Editors like this hurt Wikipedia and are part of the reason that so many people leave the project. In the end it really doesn't matter to me whether this article is kept or not - it pales in comparison to writing my thesis and keeping myself fed, clothed and housed, for example - but articles like this are encyclopedic, do no harm to Wikipedia, and are about something that is notable and important within its own particular community. I believe that the merger should be officially closed and that the one editor should concentrate his efforts on improving the encyclopedia rather than in engaging in a ridiculous power struggle, but in the end it simply is not worth any more of my time fighting over this. This is my last word on the subject. Good day. BoojiBoy 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pure smear - several editors have said that it should be merged and yet you want to ignore that and be offensive insstead. What really hurts WP is fiulling it full of rubbish and non-notable stuff. I, and a few others here, are trying to improve WP rather than use it as a tool to promote out favoured sport. Robertsteadman 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be two other editors who think it should be merged, neither of whom were hitherto active in WP:HOCKEY, against the consensus of several other editors who've uniformly demonstrated both interest and expertise in hockey. Just out of curiosity, what misrepresentations did BoojiBoy make? You have been banned, and more than once. You are flouting consensus, a charge frequently levied against you judging from your talk page. You are trying to get outsiders in to back up your POV. Obviously you're passionate about your POV, but in my opinion you've long since stepped over the element of WP:CON which states "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." Ravenswing 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The balance - as this debate is happening in two places for some reason - is fairly even. We really need to take this to RFC - and when I get teh time I'll start it,unless someone get's there first. I do wait with baited breath for the rest of the article which will clearly outline the notabaility which was soon to be posted..... until then let's leave it and open this to a much wider community. All I want is to ensure that WP remains a verifiable and factual encyclopedia of notable people, places, things, events, etc. and I am very concerned at the amount of stuff which, even though some repeat a mantra of "clearly notable" have little or no actual evidence for it. Certainly until there is extra info available a merge is the logical step, or to userfy these stubs - but, as I said, RFC is the obvious route. Robertsteadman 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're seriously asserting that the balance is "fairly even?" You filed not one, but two AfDs on the article. The second debate ran two votes to Delete, and seventeen to Keep. Under the circumstances, RfC isn't a "logical" or "obvious" route so much as a stubborn or petulant one: venue shopping in the hopes of finding editors (and possibly preferably those ignorant of hockey) somewhere to back up your POV. Contributing to the general Notability (athlete) debate is a constructive effort, and if you manage to swing consensus over to ban articles on amateur teams, that's another matter. This isn't constructive. Ravenswing 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag Removed

WP:MM states that a merge can be performed after five days if consensus is reached. As there is obviously not a consensus to merge (quite the opposite, in fact) and it has been more than five days, I have removed the tag. BoojiBoy 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that is premature. I think the debate is ongoing and you are pushing your POV. This definitely hastens the RFC . Robertsteadman 19:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• It is not premature at all. WP:MM says five days. It's been twelve - more than double what is required. And if there is a consensus on this page, it is a consensus to keep. BoojiBoy 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is premature because the debate is ongoing. Just because it CAN be removed after 5 days doesn;t mean it SHOULD be if the debate is ongoing and a definite diraction arrived at. The debate should be reopened but thanks for further evidence of POV pushing for the RFC. Robertsteadman 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• If you want to take this to RFC, then go ahead. But take stock of what's happened so far - you brought this to the Wikiproject, and the Wikiproject voted to keep it. You took it to AFD, and the AFD result was 17-2! That's not even a no consensus, it's a strong vote to keep. You proposed a merge, and the result was, depending on how you look at it, either a keep or a no consensus, and no consensus means that the status quo is maintained. Three avenues, three votes to keep. An RFC isn't going to overturn three previous decisions. We understand that you don't think that this team is notable. But you don't understand that Wikipedia works by building consensus, and so far, the consensus is solidly against your POV. BoojiBoy 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are not a vote so 17-2 is irrelevent. An RFC is the logical step when WP principles are being ignored. Robertsteadman 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The only principle that is being ignored here is WP:CON. 17-2 is not a vote but it is a definite sign of consensus. BoojiBoy 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no "debate" here now; a "debate" would imply there was an ongoing discussion on the merits of the argument. Instead, there is a single editor pushing an opinion that's failed to achieve any consensus (except rejection of that opinion) at every step along the way. The only "definite direction" in which any of this should be going is into an archive to be suitably forgotten. Ravenswing 06:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am sure you;d like to hide this away and get back to filling WP with pointless stubs about yoth and kiddie teams. Some of us care about keeping WP encyclopedic. Robertsteadman 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointless in your opinion. Three separate venues should have convinced you by now that a sizable majority of editors do not share your opinion, and since Wikipedia works by building consensus and the consensus is against you, you should give it up. BoojiBoy 12:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and requires both verifiability and notability - that has yet to be proven. Never mind, carry on with your little outbursts, it's quite sweet, and see you at the RFC. Robertsteadman 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability has been proven. Notability is in the eye of the beholders, and nearly every beholder says it's notable. Wikipedia works by building consensus, not by what Robert Steadman thinks is notable. BoojiBoy 13:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You;re wrong, but do carry on with those little rants. Brilliant. Robertsteadman 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When the debate reaches "Well... you're wrong!" then I think it can be declared closed. I think that there is no more reason for any members of WP:HOCKEY to continue to flog a dead horse here; the article is kept by the consensus of the community. Robert, if you want to RFC this, stop threatening to do it and actually do it - I feel pretty confident they won't overturn three previous decisions. Otherwise please leave us alone and contribute something positive to the encyclopedia. Regards, BoojiBoy 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooo good, more! Yes please, do consider contributing encyclopdiec and verifiable articles and stop filling WP with non-notable stubs which are only kept due to "gang" tactics. The merge debate should be continuing and the premature ending to it is a sign of a lack of good will on your part, as well as a desire to listen to reason and WP guidelliens and policy. Robertsteadman 13:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still interested in hearing your rationale for the continuance of a debate; is there some other issue not already covered? Or is "debate" code for "hopefully some more outsiders who agree with me will show up?" If so, I understand the tactic - quite in keeping with an ongoing tactic of characterizing college-age teams as "kiddie" and "children" - but so far the "debate" has gone as such:

• Delete: It's not notable!
• Keep: Here are the reasons we think it is.
• Delete: But it's not notable!

For two weeks now, people have been giving reasons why they think it is notable. You have ignored each and every one. It isn't even that you're addressing and refuting the reasons; you just keep asking for more. Your own reasons, such as they have been given, are that they're "not professional," "haven't achieved anything" or are "children's" teams, the first which is irrelevant to the notability guidelines, the second which blows holes through NPOV and the third which is just plain untrue. Ravenswing 06:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasons the debate should continue are(1) no eidence has been provided that a youth team is notable enough to be included on WP - yes, whether you like it or not it is a YOUTH team. And confusing the issue by saying the players coula play in the NHL is sily - they don;t they are amateurs and, basically, kids. (2) Several others have voted delete or merge but have been railroaded by a group forcving their view and provideing misleadng information. (3) Simply saying but they are notable is not an arguement. (4) The debate needs to be opened to a wider community not closed off - this could effect many other closed shops/wikiprojects and needs to be discussed rather than try to bury your head in the sand and pretend its not happening by removing tags during debate. If you feel they are notable you have nothing to fear from a wider debate strange that you seem to be going out of your way to prevent it. Robertsteadman 06:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(1)As RG stated, numerous reasons for notability have been given. I find it extremely ironic that you are accusing others of burying their heads in the sand, becuase so far, the only defense you have is to ignore anything we say. On the NHL argument, nobody here is trying to make articles on Jr. B players, only teams. The fact is, Jr B teams have developed NHL players, and that is just one reason why these teams are notable. You are attempting to confuse the issue by merging individuals who play at this level for three or four years with organizations that have existed for decades in several cases.

(2) Yes, several have voted delete/merge. However, several more have voted keep. Even in the most charitable view of things, the consensus disagrees with your POV.

(3) Simply saying they are not notable is not an argument either. And so far, that is the one and only argument you have. Please show me the policy that states that articles about college aged groups/teams are not permitted on Wikipedia.

(4) The debate was already opened to the wider community in the AfD where the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article. Regardless, nobody here has attempted to "railroad" the proceess but you. After losing your AfD, you tried a merge. After nearly a week of heavy debate, no consensus was reached, thus no merge, but nobody ever said debate was ended, only that the tags have been removed. All of us have encouraged you to take it to RfC, which is where we are at now. I am curious how far you are going to take this? Are you going to fly out to meet Jimbo Wales if you dont get your way here?

Resolute 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag from the article again

Consensus has been reached. The only person post-AfD who wants a merge is Rob. It's gone on for five days, and the AfD was another five days previous. The matter is closed. If you feel that this is a horrible miscarriage of justice, go ahead and file an RFC. It's time to move on. I'm posting this to associated users' talk pages as well. you know, this has really torpedoed my wikibreak  RasputinAXP  c 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you read the whole debate (in both places) you will see I am not the only person wantng a merge. Consensus has not been reached. You. and a couple of others, are forcing a decision on the community which has not been reached. That is not in the spirit of WP. It is also not in the interests of this article whereby opening debate further would be a good idea rather than burying your head in the sand and saying la, la, la over and over.Robertsteadman 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC talk

To those wishing to comment in the RFC, please note the discussion on this talk page, the related discussion in Talk:Thunder Bay Junior B Hockey League, and the AFD which resulted in a keep as noted at the top of the page. BoojiBoy 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. (listens to the sound of crickets) Ravenswing 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The concept of notability requires an editorial view which is directly opposed to the mindset of people who would know and support a local hockey team. This goes with hockey and other sports, in my experience. Regardless, there is little point in trying to draw a line for the concept of notability - that isn't the era we live in. Honestly, it just doesn't matter in this case. --Vector4F 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the team seems notable enough to deserve a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)