Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season
AfDs for this article: 


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Based on past AfD discussions, this page is not considered the highest level of hockey, and therefore (according to previously established "rules"), this article should be deleted. 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is well-sourced by reliable resources. It is an article about an NCAA Division I hockey team.  D-I is the highest level of amateur hockey in the United States.  I don't think previous AFDs should have effect on this article that stands on WP:V and WP:N by itself (although it would be useful to see links to the old AFDs).  Similar articles exist for NCAA D-I basketball and football teams; see Category:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season and Category:2008-09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season.  I know that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reason, but OtherStuffDoesn'tExist was a reason given for deletion.  I still stand that the article meets WP:N and WP:V. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is well-researched, well-written, extensively sourced, and is an excellent example of the sort of article we should all strive to write. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid justification for deleting anything. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well researched? It has less than 10 references, most of which are from stats and news announcements (which even high school athletics post online) and the 9 references given come from only 3 sources. Well researched? Extensively sourced? You must be joking. 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about WP:IDONTLIKEIT as being a valid reason why this article should be deleted? You're missing the whole point of this AfD, Gene Poole. 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no numeric threshold for cited sources at WP. If 9 citations from 3 reliable sources are sufficient to verify the content of an article, then that's all that need to be there. The "whole point" of this AfD is that it lacks one. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacks what? A reason? Here's just a brief list of arguements in favour of it's deletion:
 * WP:ILIKEIT
 * WP:UNDUE
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:SIZE
 * 03:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Division I hockey is considered by the majority of people and hockey community to be the highest level of amateur hockey. Teams and seasons are notable due to the division I school and athletic programs they are affiliated with, the media coverage DI programs recieve, and to a lesser extent the NHL prospects players on the teams. Some argue that CHL teams and leagues are the highest, the NCAA considers the CHL minor pro, but I would argue that the CHL is also the highest amateur level. Players have a choice from lower Junior leagues to go NCAA or CHL both are seperate and different but I would consider both at the top level. Division I athletics are by far the highest in the US.Bhockey10 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Djsasso has already argued this, but in case you missed his comment, I'll summarize it for you. He states that the "level" of hockey here is irrelevant. It was already agreed upon that only the highest level of hockey in the world (professional) period should have team season articles. Not the highest level of amateur hockey. "Amateur" is not "professional". This violates the terms we all agreed upon. 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:— Where are these discussions? Who decided upon them?  For the discussion of THIS article, it meets, WP:V and WP:N and is not a high school team, nor a minor league professional team, nor a NCAA Division III team.  It's about a team in one of the "major" college hockey conferences (CCHA). — X96lee15 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Djsasso is currently in the process of moving, and therefore hasn't been as active as I'm sure he would like to be, and made the comment regarding these past discussions. I'm sure when he gets the time, he will educate all of us about these past discussions that he was referring to. In the mean time, what I was getting at with the high school comment, was that a "well-sourced" article is one thing, but an article with primary sources (in this case, the official Bowling Green website) pertaining to very common news bulletins/announcements, is not considered reliable. Third-party sources are needed in that regard. However, with that being said, that is not the issue being discussed right now. The reason the article is up for deletion is simply because it is not a professional hockey team. Period. That's the reason. I don't know how else to word it to you guys. Wikipedia is not a statistics database is also a notable arguement. I hate to see this article get deleted just as much as you guys, believe me, I've been in your shoes many times before, but it simply all comes down to policy, and the fact that it is not a professional team. I hope I'm making sense. 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those aren't valid reasons. As far as reliable sources, 1) there are others already listed besides bgsufalcons, 2)the first step to unsourced articles is to find them yourself or put a tag up citing the need for them. 3) I can find many third party sources with a click of the mouse which I can have done by tomorrow (busy tonight...) I'm not trying to go against any previous afds, If this was a Jr. B or even Jr. A team I would say delete but since this is a well written article, that uses stats in an organized manner it can be on wikipedia. The Wikipedia is not a statistics database argument pertains to stub-like articles that just list random stats and numbers.Bhockey10 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Djsasso and Resolute's opinions on the matter are. Perhaps everything I've been tought about articles and their deletions by admins from the Ice Hockey WikiProject has been 100% wrong. After all, I'm only going by what they've been saying. 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, NCAA is the highest level of amateur hockey in the US. That makes it notable enough for a team article. A season article is a different issue though.  Grsz  11   →Review!  22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:UNDUE is the main issue that this article would be violating. To have this kind of season detail for a team at this level is a case of undue weight and as such also is a case of wikipedia is not a sports almanac or stats database. Its been long established that the highest level of amateur hockey is not league level hockey but international competition of the senior variety as well since level of hockey was mentioned above. -Djsasso (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Djasso and Grsz. The team is notable, but not all of their seasons. While the little prose the article does have is sourced it doesn't translate to notablility; Verifiability does not equal Notability. Guidelines for teams and player's notabilities seem pretty well structured, perhaps a discussion should take place concerning seasons, etc. but until then it's a delete.  Black  ngold29   23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a nonexistant List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons. LegoKontribsTalkM 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why in the world do you just leave a commentless delete on your own nom? AfD isn't a voting contest, it's a forum for discussion. I'm fairly new to the process and I know that. Besides, unless you change your mind on wanting the article deleted, why the heck would you "vote" anyway, as it's obvious by your comments and your nomination what you feel.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't lecture me, I am well aware of what an AfD is and isn't. I wasn't "voting", I was saving the admin's time of reading all my posts to figure what my stance was, and simply saying "Delete" is summarizing my opinion based on my previous posts. When an admin desides whether or not to keep this article, he can skim over the bold words, and make his decision based on that. Your comment has no affiliation with this ongoing discussion, and ironically, your lecturing me. 01:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not up for a war of words so this will be my final comment, I'm not lecturing you, I by no means am in a position to do so, you just seem overly anxious to do what it takes to see this article deleted... but I do have to make the obligatory mention of your statement "I wasn't 'voting'..." and put it beside your other statement "...[the admin] can skim over the bold words, and make his decision based on that" - sounds an aweful lot to me like you think the admin would make it a vote... Anywho, I'm done. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, leaving my comment at just Delete is allowed, according to Wikipedia policy. I suggest you take a look at Guide_to_deletion and read the part about leaving a Delete comment. I would prefer from now on that you don't criticize me with inaccurate information. I knew exactly what I was doing. 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My response to this and your message on my talk page is on your talk page. This is no place for this discussion. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Especially if someone starts doing some research and writing naratives on this and past seasons. A list of season records and standings is nothing more than a stat collection, but some actual information in the form of detailed numbers and narrative overviews can be very interesting, and seeing as this is D1 hockey, it certainly is notable. D1 college football seasons are notable, why not D1 hockey? It is one of the 4 major sports in the US.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - NCAA Division I articles are considered notable for other sports. I fail to recognize why hockey thinks that as a project it should be able to set different standards. matt91486 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DI football is the highest amateur level of football. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Anyone and anything can become notable simply by enough coverage from reliable sources, which this has. How can this fail notability?  If some project or another should decide that amateur hockey team seasons shouldn't get their own article, that's a question of merging, not of deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anyone and anything can become notable simply by enough coverage from reliable sources," is an inaccurate analogy of Wikipedia's General notability guideline (Presumed section). 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not going to side on this AfD as I would be fine with either outcome. So I'll instead point out a few things. NCAA football and basketball are much more notable than DI ice hockey. Essentially, DI FBS football is on par with the NFL in terms of coverage from game one until the FBS Championship game. The NFL relies almost solely on college players at the Draft. I think it's pretty obvious that NCAA DI FBS football season articles are good to go. Basketball, although not quite as "on par" with the NBA as FBS is to the NFL, is still hugely notable. The NBA isn't quite as reliant on college players, but still at least 75-80% come from NCAA schools. Moving to hockey, and you run into much less notability. The NHL does not rely on college players, although they do get a good chunk. Just look at player proflies for the NFL, NBA, and NHL. The NFL and NBA always state the college from which the player came from. In the NHL there is no significance to this as the league is so diverse (with players coming from very many leagues). Look at championships as well, the FBS receives massive airtime with almost all games covered by a major outlet, same with March Madness. As for DI hockey, I can honestly say I've never seen a Frozen Four game unfortunately. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you haven't seen a Frozen Four game, you're missing out! Early round games are on ESPNU (sometimes ESPN Classic. The Final Series and I think semi finial series are on ESPN. Also college hockey games are on ESPNU and CLassic all season long, and on Fox College Sports channels, CSTV, and now the CCHA (including BGSU) is on the NHL Network.--Bhockey10 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean though. They only broadcast college hockey games on ESPNU or conference TV networks, whereas you can watch football games every weekend and the bowl series on the major American networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or ESPN, and March Madness on CBS. I don't think ESPNU or other college TV networks are as widespread as the big 4+ESPN. – Nurmsook!  talk...  21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In certain places the Frozen Four is considered almost as important, though. Certainly not as universally, but in the northern half of the country, especially east of the Mississippi, college hockey is quite important. matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep aside from WP:ATHLETE which this article obviously meets by being the highest level of the amateur sport, there is enough significant coverage to warrant an article on its own outside of WP:ATHLETE. Notable. Verifiable.  Worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it meet WP:ATHLETE? That's strictly for athlete biographies, not team season articles for every year. Can you define "worthwhile" in a neutral point of view, that would benefit Wikipedia? Seems a lot like WP:ILIKEIT, which doesn't qualify as an arguement, and has no place in deletion discussions. 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ATHLETE has been roughly used in a wider range of sports articles besides player bios. In general it's a good measure for sports articles, especially for those who's notability may come into question.--Bhockey10 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with this one, WP:ATHLETE consists of two lines, both beginning with "Competitors" as in people. I see no evidence that it goes beyond the inclusion of people.  Black  ngold29   19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, it's been established time and again that college players do not meet WP:ATHLETE, as they have not competed at the highest level of amateur hockey or professional hockey. So if WP:ATHLETE is to be used as a guideline, then it's clearly not notable. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment okay, fine... if you want, it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE--but my original comment still stands--Notable. Verifiable.  Worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, this article seems to fall into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the majority of it's article is not "readable prose" according to WP:SIZE. Even organized tables, templates, links, references, statistics, etc. is not considered "readable". It is suggested that articles should contain a majority of "body text", with a minority non-readable prose. In this case, it's the complete other way around. This directly violates Wikipedia policy. 02:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that this discussion is beginning to wind down to its conclusion (hopefully). According to the deletion process and resolution, Wikipedia recommends a truce between both parties. So, what I am getting at is that we should look at (previously mentioned) merging of the article into a future "List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons". 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article stands on its own. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have clearly listed and thoroughly explained each policy this article is violating. It seems as if there will not be a clear consensus or end to this discussion that everyone will agree with, therefore according to Wikipedia, a truce is in order. If you disagree with this policy, X96lee15, then I suggest you read into Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm trying to reason with the opposing party, something you clearly have no interest in doing. How do you suggest this gets resolved then? Don't suggest keeping the article as a resolution, we've already been there before. Something that we can all agree with, and learn/move forward from. 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with X96lee15. Moving the article to List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons is illlogical. Either keep the article as it is, or merge into the article Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey under a new section called Current Season.Bhockey10 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are any of you even remotely reading what I post? We have to come to an agreement in order to end this discussion. That's the whole point of having a discussion in the first place. To share our opinions based on notable arguements. Not one-liners saying "keep, it's notable, worthwhile, blah blah blah". That's just opinion going by WP:ILIKEIT. "Keeping the article as it is" is not an option here. I don't know how else to explain this to you. I can just as easily take my stance as "delete" and argue to death why it should be deleted, but I choose to act like the only adult around here (at the age of 18 for Pete's sake), and compromise with all of you. If you're not going to meet me in the middle, then seriously start coming up with actual reasons this article should stand on it own, and explain them as best as you can. So far all I'm getting is something about WP:ATHLETE, and WP:ILIKEIT; which are not reasons to keep this article. Be bold, post some actual evidence based on Wiki policy why this article should stand on its own, or work with me at negotiating a truce. 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, for claiming that you're the only one acting like an adult, your previous comment wasn't very WP:CIVIL. "Keeping the article as it is" is a very reasonable conclusion to this AFD.  First, the argument for deleting this article was, "this article should be deleted because of previously established rules".  Nobody has linked to where these rules are or what these "rules" are.  I looked around WP:HOCKEY and could not find anything.  Sounds to me like they were "made up" once one hockey season article was deleted.  However, as I've stated before, this article, on its own, is notable and verifiable.  Sure it could be cleaned up a little bit, but in no way should it be deleted. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The momment you prioritize this AfD over picking apart my posts, will be the momment this discussion will get resolved. I've tried my best at resolving this AfD. I'm not going to even bother talking to you anymore, until you realize what's more important here: picking apart others' posts, or resolving this AfD. Until then, don't expect to be treated like an adult from me. 01:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Djsasso. We delete junior hockey seasons, which are more notable than college hockey seasons. College hockey is not the highest level of amateur hockey. We delete college players and junior players. Unless you win a national championship, there's nothing notable here. Of course, after someone argued in depth to keep a peewee hockey team last week, I'm not sure anything surprises me at this point. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * College is the highest level, the goal of Jr. hockey is to develop players for a move up to college level and pro levels.Bhockey10 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Various things here. WP:Ice Hockey has established time and again that the highest amateur level of hockey is senior level international competition. Also, junior hockey is absolutely not a feeder to college, as outside of the USHL they are ineligible to compete in the NCAA. Junior hockey is a higher level of hockey than college and we do not consider their seasons notable. Therefore, we would not consider a lower level team's season notable. --Smashvilletalk 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know nothing about hockey? Jr. Hockey is a feeder for college hockey, 90-95% of players go through Jr. Hockey before playing college hockey. Only the three major junior leagues are ineligible b/c the NCAA considers the CHL teams/leagues minor pro.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Civil much? Or do you want to keep calling me dumb because of semantics? I think it's fairly obvious that I was referring to major/Tier I junior, considering my reference to the USHL... --Smashvilletalk 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification for the closing admin, comparing a NCAA Division I hockey season to a pee-wee hockey season is hyperbole. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was assuming the closing admin wouldn't be a moron. --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about some precedence for deletion? Here and here (with virtually the same keep arguments). --Smashvilletalk 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those examples aren't very similar to this afd. But I think we at WP:Ice Hockey need to have serious discussion about including Major Jr. and DI college hockey into the highest level of amateur hockey. Especially because outside of the Olympics, International play doesn't get much exposure, where DI hockey and Major Jr. get vast exposure season after season.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, so let's look realistically at what you're suggesting. Luckily I liked learning in Math class. 60 teams play out of the Canadian Hockey League, while 12 teams play out of Division I. That's 72 teams, each with their own independant season article for every season. That's 216 season articles in just three years from now. That to me, is not worth noting. I mean, what on Earth are you going to fill those 216 articles with, that would possibly benefit Wikipedia? It seems to me like this is all for personal gain. I can't even remember hearing of anyone on this Wiki who had enough time on their hands to navigate the past 100 years of Montreal Canadiens seasons. With that being said, that's just one team out of the League's 30. Now what you're suggesting is that 72 teams now deserve their own seperate articles for every season with "worthwhile information" that will meet quality standards. Good luck with that. 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok I do see your point. If this article can't be on it's own I would support a Merge into the existing article Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey under a new section called Current Season. If the Major Jr and NCAA DI teams are allowed seperate articles I would suggest a guideline to rename and then redo the season article every season- i.e. next season this article would be renamed 2009-10 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season that way there would just be those 72 articles(haven't done the math but it sounds correct).Bhockey10 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, now we're getting somewhere! I liked your first suggestion, merging it into the team's article. In due time, when the team article becomes overly bulky, all we would have to do is summarize their seasons into a "History" section, then add a Main article: tag and link to a "History of the... (1999–??)" or something similar. Also, an alternative would be to have collapsible tables of thier standings or whatever takes up space, and have a "Bowling Green Falcons ice hockey seasons" article. Within that, everything can be summarized, sourced, wikified, and THAT would definetly stand as an acceptable article. I think a move/merge is a great compromise. 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah...consider the fact that we can't even get enough people to handle all of the NHL season articles...--Smashvilletalk 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These are good points, especially Hucz's about the sheer number of articles that if they are even created will doubtfully get beyond a stub. There are hundreds of NHL season articles that are still yet to be created; there is one out of multiple hundreds that is a GA. There are quite a few people who have voted keep, I would be interested in seeing how many are directly involved in the upkeep of like articles (everyone is obviously entitled to voting, but just saying). As I said originally, I think we need to establish a policy about season articles; how would we go about this?  Black  ngold29   04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, (User:Hucz) ideas are good too! I think this is a good situation for a Merge, I definately don't want to see what is usable info and fairly organized statistics go to waste, I think merging is best. I'm no expert on merging articles yet so if someone else can do it, that would be a big help!--Bhockey10 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although every situation is different, in future season article cases similar to this one we should look into merger first before deleting, myself (and I'm sure many who argued keep) would have voted for a merger if a merge tag was placed instead of an afd --Bhockey10 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, this merger idea is not how I currently feel. It's just the best option at resolving this dispute that everyone can find some agreement with. Don't get me wrong, though. This will act as a good building-off-of guide for future reference when needed. Until then, you can most likely expect (from me at least) that an AfD won't be placed on future amateur hockey season articles (if they for whatever reason are created, which I am really hoping otherwise). In the near future, a similar discussion to this will take place on the WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion page (if nescessary). 08:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - season articles are fine for the highest level of teams. Since ice hockey is played professionally there is no case for a season article on an amateur team. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should standards be different for hockey than basketball or football? matt91486 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be. I can't speak for football (American) but in football (Association) only teams in fully professional leagues get season pages and that should be the same for all sports with a professional level. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I would support the elimination of non-pro sports teams (ie college football and basketball) however, one reason that was stated earlier was the college football and basketball are far more mainstream than hockey, and thus recieve more coverage. The March Madness tournament is as popular as anything in US sports, however the college hockey playoffs are rarely (if ever) mentioned on sports shows.  Black  ngold29   23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't base this on ESPN. ESPN barely even talks about the NHL now that they don't broadcast it.  In northern parts of the US, the Frozen Four is an incredibly big deal still, and receives substantial media coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, association football in Europe is set-up in a completely unrelated fashion to college sports in the US, so I don't think it's a valid comparison at all. We hit that argument every time American college soccer MLS draftee articles are written in the Spring.  It's a completely different world. matt91486 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, While basketball is very popular in some regions of the US, in Northern regions hockey is very popular.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not dedicated to regionalism. Clearly DI ice hockey is a big deal in certain areas, but outside of those, it's completely not notable. I made the point earlier that football and basketball were clearly notable, as even up here in Canada we get full coverage of regular season games (usually just football) and championships. Like I said, I've never seen anything to do with college ice hockey aside from who won the Hobey Baker and which team won the Frozen Four, and this is an ice hockey crazy country. You would think if it were so notable, some TV network would try to pick up national airtime rights. Wikipedia articles should be notable no matter where you go, not just in Ohio. – Nurmsook!  talk...  01:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue about how wrong you are...It's already been established that Division I sports and hockey are notable. Long Story Short:ESPN is lacking on coverage of any Hockey as the old leaders of ESPN were not hockey fans.with some new leaders at ESPN, the company is looking to bringing the NHL back to ESPN and increased college coverage should be back too... Right now: Canada may not see all the games on regional sport networks such as FSN and Comcast. The NHL Network just signed a deal with the CCHA to broadcast games in the US and Canada. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am NOT saying DI hockey is not notable. I'm saying that season articles of DI hockey ARE NOT notable, while DI basketball (borderline) and football (completely) articles ARE. Look at all my points made so far, nowhere have I specifically said Keep or Delete. Just saying what needs to be said. Also, I would appreciate you not questioning my knowledge in the field of sport (I am involved in it as a profession, BTW), but if you do have an issue with it, please simply take it to my talk page, not here. – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your previous comment didn't clarify you were talking about season articles, In that case I agree that season articles are acceptable for DI football. I think for the less high profile (yet notable) sports, hockey and basketball season articles should not be used. That's why I support a merge to the main article on BG hockey. Hopefully in the future we can get some consensus for amateur season article. However, I would support season articles for championship teams in NCAA DI hockey and/or basketball.(BTW I'm also involved in the sport industry.)Bhockey10 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The debate here is not whether the team or its players are notable but whether the seasons in its history are notable. I do not believe that there is any demand for an article of this ilk outside of the NCAA fraternity, and so the notability of this article should be questioned. – PeeJay 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what your rationale for deletion is here. Just because the "demand" for an article might be low, doesn't mean that the "supply" cannot be present.  Not all articles are required to be frequent search terms. matt91486 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2008 (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.