Talk:Lakehead Junior Hockey League

Merge
The closing admin on the AfD has agreed that merging this article with the league article migt be a good route ahead. I think it is the only solution as there is no valid reason for a separate article. Someone claimed that an admin had instructe separate articles were needed - could someone please provide that information? I suggest, until each team does something genuinely notable, that the League article is more than enough for youth teams. Robertsteadman 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my role as the closing admin of Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination) I decided that there was no consensus to delete that article. That does not mean that a merger can't take place, as merging does not require an AFD decision. In my role as an editor, I support the merger proposal, as a sensible compromise between having no information at all on the smaller clubs and having masses of short stubs. Please do not use my closure of that AFD as a reason for saying that separate articles are needed. Petros471 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The creator of this article has indicated that he will be expanding the article at some point, however. I agree with you that the stub as it currently exists is of little value, however if the capability of expanding this article exists, should it not retain its own article? Resolute 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, I have created Airdrie Thunder for a team I am more familiar with that is on the same level. I hope to expand that article further, however I believe what I have created offers a decent view of what this page can become. Resolute 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another example: Owen Sound-Saugeen Shores Greys, and there are plenty more like this. Sadly, Rob has went on his "War Against the Junior Hockey Stub" a whole month after any of us actually started to fill in Junior hockey stubs.  So this is a work in progress... anyways... I liked this quote: I am already in discussion over this with a number of people - THunder Bay Northern Hawks days are limited....Robertsteadman 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC) -- Vandetta is not cool.  I do not see anyone of us going after any of your ever-so-notable articles -- maybe you need to extend the same courtesy.  DMighton 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Amusing. Robertsteadman 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, they are stubs... leave it be. It is here as a place marker for a future article.  This push against the TBJHL seems to be a little pointless.  Also, to what Petros471 said, this is not some mass of stubs... there are 4.  DMighton 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this still going on? Two AFD nominations and now this? Give it up and leave it alone. BoojiBoy 00:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I could be swayed to support a merge if a good reason was given. At this point, no good reason has been given.  I support leaving the article seperate in order to give it a chance to grow.  -- JamesTeterenko 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason is simple (and clear) - very few (if any) youth teams (that's what all these junior teams are - youth and children's teams) warrant an encyclopedia article about them - there are not notable enough to have a separate artcile and all the info could easily be contained in one article about the league (assuming that is notable enough). WP is not here to catalogue and list everything that exists and has happened but this would seem a sensible route for youth team info. In the AfD someone claimed that an admin had instructed separate articles - however no proof has yet been given fro this..... And Petros471 supports a merge as a sensible option. Robertsteadman 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument presupposes that the team does not warrant an article. Your recent Afd clearly had strong support that this is not the case.  -- JamesTeterenko 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It might have had strong support but it lacked any evidence of notability beyond being the biggest youth team in a mid-sized town. WOW! SO what?!! Robertsteadman 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There may have been support but throughout it nobody offered any genuine notability beyond they are the biggest youth team in a middle sized town.... surely THAT is not a reaosanable level of notability? If that's the case we WILL have to hugely increase WP to include all largeish youth teams in all sports in every mid sized town in teh world.... Robertsteadman 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your constant references to "youth" and "children's" teams in both this discussion and the AFDs quite clearly indicate you have no idea what these teams actually are. Can you please accept the consensus of the community and leave ice hockey alone? BoojiBoy 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are youth teams -age restricted to 20 year olds. That makes them a youth team in my book. Like an Under 21 at football. Hardly older than High school. They, and all the other simnilar teas, have done nothing of note. Robertsteadman 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does "hardly older than high school" automatically constitute "non notable?" Are you proposing that any topic related to people below the age of 20 be deleted?  The fact is, these are not "youth teams", and your consistant usage of the term is a violation of WP:NPOV.  The majority of the players are adults.  Not that this is relevent, as the only place on Wikipedia where the age of the people involved is relevent is in your mind.  I also move that this merge request be closed. Resolute 23:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are like a U-21 in football, except in terms of popularity and importance. Perhaps it is not possible for an Englishman to understand the differences between the way sport is organized in North America versus in Britain (although there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which do just that), but the only thing that this team has in common with the U-21 side of a football team is age. BoojiBoy 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

....and their lack of notability!Robertsteadman 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you actually read what I wrote... I move to close the merge proposal. BoojiBoy 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did - they are not notable - they are a youth team of no consequence. At best they should be merged - if not merged deleted outright - with their youth league. Robertsteadman 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He was never here to discuss, he is here to impose his will... we have found this out through over a week of him ignoring anything we say... it is unfortunate that we have to waste our time on him. DMighton 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't start with tyhe personal attacks - it is a clear sign of someone who has lost the arguement. Robertsteadman 05:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Amusing. DMighton 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I second the move to close this proposal. DMighton 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I make it four in favour of non-merge and three in favour of merge (when the discussion on the teams talk page is included - why has the debate been split?) - this needs to be opened up to a wider community - either RFC or Third Opinion.Certainbly this debate should not be closed - that is an attempt to railroad a decision without consensus which is hardly in the spirit of WP Robertsteadman 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is still going on? If your that hellbent on deleting some hockey related articles you should check out List of Saginaw Spirit alumni. ccwaters 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)