Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season


 * 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 Delete, the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline. -- Maxim (talk)  20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I doubt that a junior hockey team season is notable, or at least in the excessive detail as this. Flibirigit (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions.   —Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The team is a minor league professional outfit and certainly appears notable. It is a professional team, and the existence of a page detailing an individual season is consistent with many other professional teams - for example see Australian_cricket_team_in_South_Africa_in_2005-06. Manning (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The team is not a minor league professional outfit, its a junior team made up of highschool age kids who eventually hope to join the minor/major leagues. Not to mention your example is a national team and not even a professional team which wouldn't even be the same thing if this was a professional team. --Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The league is notable enough to have a season article that encompasses the all the teams, but the individual teams seasons are not notable enough to merit an article. Anything notable that happens to an individual team can be added to the league page as individual teams at this level don't have alot of notable events that happen. --Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to delete decent articles, but this kind of detail for a minor league team sets a bad precedent. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it should stay an article because its not the only Junior team to have a current season article and while this 1 might not be as big as the others ,years later it could be usefull to people who want to know the indivduial game scores for the team. NCAA has season articles and their games are not as **notable as the QMJHL,WHL and OHL. These games garner more press and Scouts than the american leagues. So it NCAA has seasonal articles the St.Johns Fog Devils should too.Another point to add is that putting every team into 1 article is ludicris,that wuld be a huge messy article that would eventully have to be divided up into individual team by March. But I agree,it will need more info if it will be a proper article.Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The NCAA does not have season articles for its teams, and if it did then they would most likely be put up here for deletion as well. I think you miss the point of having one article. Its not to mass all the things that happen to each team in one article. Its to note the notable things that happened in the league in one article. Something that is notable enough for a team page wouldn't necessarily be notable enough in the scope of the league so to speak. Its how we currently manage season articles. If we were to start having articles for all the teams in each of these leagues it would be rediculous. 2006-07 QMJHL season is an example of what shows up on season article of a league at this level. If you want to see a professional level article. 2006-07 NHL season is an example. I think you will see they aren't very messy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Far over the excessive detail and far under the notability thresholds; by way of comparison, minor league professional teams (which QMJHL teams are not) lack such detail. While Mr. Deathhawk might wish to elaborate as to exactly why anyone on Earth would care five years down the road about the scoring summary for a random St. John's-Drummondville game in Xth season, the answer to the issue of layering on too much detail to any one QMJHL article is simple:  don't.    Ravenswing  18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable season for a moderately notable team.  Wikipedia articles are not collections of statistics.  Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball - the season in question has barely even started and can hardly be considered notable.  The fact that someone, someday, may want to look up the match results doesn't make it appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. QMJHL is in the league just below the NHL and some of these players are or will be drafted by NHL teams and sent to play there. I don't understand the concern for too much detail. If it's verifiable and NPOV, then it's within Wikipedia policy. If you think it needs editing, then go ahead and do so; AfD is not necessary. And by the way, players in QMJHL do get paid, so I believe that makes them professional and my first try at a NCAA season article came up with a positive hit: 2007 Florida Gators football team. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * * Comment: Ummm ... players in major junior get stipends, which may be enough for the hypersensitive NCAA but not otherwise. The major junior leagues, far from being "just below the NHL," are amateur leagues that are below all professional hockey leagues, the minors included.  Some QMJHL players do eventually make the NHL (an average of six of them in any given year will become impact players) but that likewise applies to peewee and bantam leagues.    Ravenswing  06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a fact, Jack? How many players from your "professional hockey leagues" go on to the NHL? About half of the players in the NHL came from the CHL and 46% of the players in this year's draft were from the CHL. I still ask, as well, what benefit is gained from not having a comprehensive article on this? Double Blue  (Talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source of players to the NHL has no bearing on the copious listing of scores and transactions of a certain junior team. The large majority of single games in the CHL are not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your POV. The fact is that the subject of this article can be reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV. That's all that's really required. Deleting it is showing a bias.  Double Blue  (Talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any statistic, can be reliably sourced and presented neutrally. But each must serve a notable purpose. These do not. Flibirigit (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can just as readily source the game summaries of the Senior B no-check duffers' league operating out of the municipal rink, but the basis for this AfD isn't WP:V. Beyond that, I'd hate myself to rely for support in an argument upon an old discussion where two-thirds of those polled disagreed with my position, and beyond that, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind.  Finally, that nearly half of the NHL's players come from major junior doesn't change the facts that few junior players in any given season become impact players in the NHL, and that a majority of the NHL's player have minor-league experience.    Ravenswing  12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct about remaining civil. I think I did become a little too personal in my "fact Jack" response above. We need to keep discussion to the article in question. My point is simply, then, that worries that the article is about something not important or is in too much detail do not lead to deletion but, rather, clean-up. Importance is not a judgement call to be left to editors, that is POV. It is only required that it have enough reliable sources to be verifiable and presented NPOV. The fact that it is verifiable and NPOV is what makes it "encyclopedic" and my link above is to Jimbo Wales saying that in a clear way. Collecting reliable, NPOV sources for the 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season should be easy. If you can find them for the Senior B no-check duffers' league, I would be surprised but led to believe it deserves inclusion. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's opinion is nice, but unless he overtly changes Wikipedia's rules, his is just that of any other editor. As you must be aware, contributors to AfD discussions make judgment calls as to whether subjects pass the notability bar on an hourly basis.  If you wish to argue that the only legitimate bar to inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:V, there are other venues to do that.    Ravenswing  13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood me. I did not say any of what you state here. I linked to Jimbo wording not his authority, I said importance is not a contributor's judgement call, and that V+NPOV are the only legitimate bars to inclusion. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vast precedent works against you, I'm afraid. We'll see how consensus runs.    Ravenswing  17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's happened does not make it right. WP:N: "objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." Double Blue  (Talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again it suggests that it is notable, but does not make it so in all cases. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You mention that about half the players from the CHL go to the NHL. What you don't mention is that those players go through the other professional leagues first. It's not a straight A to B trip. The AHL would be the league directly below the NHL. Players do not get paid, they get a $40 a week honorarium which is not considered pay by anyone except the NCAA. Secondly the article you pulled up was not about hockey, but even so even if it does exist you can't use the arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thirdly just because you can verify facts does not make it encyclopedic, as mentioned earlier I can find newspaper articles/stats on local peewee hockey in the paper but we routinely delete articles about such things because even though they are verifiable, they are not noteworthy. --Djsasso (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I pulled up the article because someone claimed NCAA season articles don't exist. Or was that statement intended only for hockey? WP:BIAS I was not trying to say OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I was countering the argument that OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST, which is equally invalid. V + NPOV = Keep. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that comment was in reply to someone else mentioning that NCAA hockey articles are no more important than CHL hockey articles, I think its appropriate that the response to that was about hockey articles and thus is not WP:BIAS because the conversation was about hockey articles to begin with and to show that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not valid. V + NPOV != Keep. V + NOTE + NPOV = Keep. This is missing notability. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, like many, you misunderstand WP:N to be editorial judgement of importance but it is not. NOTE=A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.=WP:V+WP:NPOV. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you keep reading farther down that section you will see that it says "usually" after having reached concensus by a group of editors. We are a group of editors and so far it looks like the concensus is that it is not notable. --Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of those criteria do you think it cannot meet? I've only seen arguments here that the subject is not important enough or has too much detail. Double Blue  (Talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the section says. It says that meeting those criteria often means it is notable. It does not mean that meeting them automatically makes it notable. Whether or not it is notable is decided by editors. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline", "'Presumed' means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors", and "criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus", therefore consensus decides whether criteria is met and that decides whether it's "notable". My question is valid. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. As you can see it says it is usually worthy of notice and meets one of the criteria for a stand alone article. Not all of them. Notability being one of the others. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not collections of statistics. The article is just standings, scores, and transactions. Standings are already covered in the league article. If for some reason any individual game or player transaction is notable, it can incoporated as prose in the team's article under its "history" section. Flibirigit (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Djsasso comments above. NCAA commentary was meant to show that NCAA Hockey teams do not have season articles.  If any were found, they would be put up for afd as non-notable.  This minor league hockey team fails Notability standards as set by Project Ice Hockey.  --Pparazorback (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But NCAA football season articles would be okay, right? Double Blue  (Talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they would be ok as Wikipedia is not a collections of statistics. I barely think the top level leagues such as the NHL or MLB should have them, never mind amateur leagues. I would see them all deleted but I prefer to stick to areas I know about instead of the shotgun method that others favour. -Djsasso (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete its not notable enough to be kept, as has been said by everyone else. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what's next? the Alberton Regals season? GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What makes this less important than other articles of similar nature? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that it is an amateur junior team made up of highschool age players. And again is there any other reasoning besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?--Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Question, ameteur junior team?What does that mean that the team Is Not the highest level of junior hockey there is besides the world championships witch aint even a league? The WHL,OHL & QMJHL are the 3 top junior leagues in the world and thats a fact.Just to point another thing out that the majority of players are 18,19,20 and they greatly outnumber the numeber of HIgh School Age players (But I do agree they have some highschool aged players.Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Except as you mentioned its not the highest level of amateur competition. The World Championships or the Olympics would be the highest level of amateur competition. And even if they were the highest level of amateur compitition it is still not profressional. We aren't arguing about how important the leagues themselves are, we are arguing about how important a page of stats from ONE team in that league is. I don't know where you went to school but alot of people graduate highschool at 19 so yes the majority of players in the league are highschool aged. (And a team is only allowed to have three 20 year olds on a team so you might as well not even count 20 year olds.) --Djsasso (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Correctiing what you said about the 20 year olds it 21 years olds that are considered overagers and 20 year olds are not, alot of players are 20 year old and most teams have more than 3,but they can only have 3 21 Yr OldsMr.Deathhawk (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I wasn't wrong I just looked it up on the WHL FAQ.
 * "17. How many 20 year olds can a team use? WHL teams are allowed a maximum of three overage players. Teams having more than three overage players to start the season may continue to rotate them in and out of the lineup until October 16th at which time they must select determine the three that they will keep. Other 20-year-olds become free agents for the other teams in the League. From October 16th until February 10th, teams may bring in an overage player, but, if they have three already, then they have to release one. February 10 of each year is the roster deadline and all players who are with a team on that date are there for the duration of the season."
 * --Djsasso (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Must be diffrent in the WHL then the OHL and QMJHL (Im used to those leagues more than the WHL), cause my favourite team, the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds have more than 3 20 year old players and they can only have 2 21 aged players, so your right and wrong at the same time,just as i was before,depends on the league jus like if a European Hockey fan woh like team form the Finnish league SMILGA,he would say you cant trade players,but thats not true over here as you can. Diffrent league diffrent rules (Even though the WHL,OHL,QMJHL are all goverend by the CHL)Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * QMJHL Rulebook Section 3.02 says the same as the WHL. I couldn't find the OHL online so I can't proove that one but I am pretty sure the ruling covers all of the CHL because they play each other for the Memorial Cup and it wouldn't be far if one league had more older players than another (Though on the Soo Greyhounds website they have only 3 twenty year olds listed on the team). Anyways this doesn't really have to much bearing on the current discussion other than to say individual games at this level are just not notable enough for a game by game summary that a page like this provides. -Djsasso (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.