Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgewater Bandits


 * 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   Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Bandits

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

Non Notable amateur junior hockey teams. It appears that all of the teams in the League got articles at one time or another and at least one was deleted after an expired PROD. This was a contested prod on all of these articles. LegoTech ·( t )·( c ) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All All are Junior A hockey teams. Junior hockey is the feeder system to the NHL.  If anything the articles need expansion and improvement tags.  DMighton (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on Eastern Junior Hockey League the teams aren't actually Junior A and sound more like a local minor league which have been routinely deleted in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that back in the day the EJHL was a little shakier than it is now, but my understanding is that it is a legitimate junior league. As you know Djsasso, most of the American junior leagues, including the USHL and NAHL, are relatively new and experience many growing pains.  Also, it probably seems that way because the guy who built the page didn't do a very good job.  DMighton (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh I know, which is why I haven't !voted delete. I don't know enough about that junior league to comment. I could only go on what I saw in the leagues article itself. I know you know your junior hockey so I am more than willing to go on what you say. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks. I just think these articles are terribly done, I think that is the problem here.  I guess I'll have to give them the treatment.  Templates, sources, update them a bit, find more history to add.  I am very familiar with two of the teams because they used to play in the OPJHL... the articles just need some work.  DMighton (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all Running a Google News Archive Search on those teams turns up results from various newspapers about the teams themselves and the games they have won/lost. Because of this I think those articles meet notability guidelines. Atyndall93  |  talk  10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Even though individual players are not normally notable, the teams are. --Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's notability doesn't appear to be a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all Teams are notable, both locally, and within the hockey community. --Bill.matthews (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone supporting these articles please find sources that are more than just scores listed in the papers? I couldn't find anything. And its not a feeder for the NHL, its a high school club league...from the article about the league "The League consists of 14 teams in the Northeastern US. The EJHL prepares players for college hockey. The league is strictly amateur." LegoTech ·( t )·( c ) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Very inaccurate. All junior hockey is a pro feeder system.  The beauty of Junior A is that it provides a level where you can go either the pro or scholastic route (especially for late bloomers).  To be a high school team, your team actually has to be affiliated to a high school and have to be strictly high school age.  Players in these leagues can usually play up to the age of 21.  Also, the word "amateur" in junior hockey is a relatively archaic term... and is loosely fitted to junior hockey.  If anything, the article should say that "players in this league are still NCAA eligible, as long as the abide by NCAA guidelines."  Also, newspapers are an acceptable statistical resource and are the most common statistical sharing tool for the sport of hockey.  DMighton (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Problem is that newspapers will report the scores of whatever you send in...if you want to submit the scores for your local darts league, you can find a paper to print them...I don't see how box scores satisfy WP:RS...history, sources, anything like that would help lots! LegoTech &middot;( t )&middot;( c ) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I fixed that Boston link. You see, with Junior leagues newspapers will actually "cover" the league.  This normally includes professional articles and interviews... minimum weekly standings... and yes, box scores.  The degree of coverage usually involves how local the paper is to the team or league in question.  Also, if there is a "bigger" team in your centre you might get less coverage than normal, like an NHL club would outshine and junior club for newspaper coverage.  I find it very rare to find minor hockey standings in a newspaper... although some do.  The difference between minor and junior is that minor is the developmental stage, while junior is the fast tracking stage... and the goal of junior is to prepare a player to either go directly into the NHL, AHL, IHL, or ECHL, or if they so choose to undertake NCAA or CIS, to go there and delay they pro jump by four years (perfect for late bloomers).  Junior is all about championships, sometimes to the point that amateur status becomes not only shady, but non-existent.  Either way, when I get a chance I'll start cleaning up the articles.. I contacted the guy who put the stats in and asked him for his sources so I can add them.  DMighton (talk) 12:32, 21 May 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.