Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Ottawa Senators teams


 * 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. --Core desat 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Ottawa Senators teams

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is one long essay that tries to link together the various incarnations of ice hockey teams named the Ottawa Senators. This article is complete original research and synthesis of facts. All reliable sources about these teams point to them being separate entities, not connected as this article suggests. Further, the histories of the current Senators, the original Senators and the senior team are already well documented at their respective articles, making this one redundant. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominaton. GoodDay 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH. It is an attempt to bind three different franchises into one, and is completely redundant to the three articles listed by NeoChaosX.  This POV fork is also being pushed against consensus in a debate that is currently spanning at least three separate talk pages: Talk:National Hockey League, Talk:Ottawa Senators and Talk:Wikiproject Ice hockey.  FWIW though, I do beleve that User:Alaney2k meant well when he created this. Resolute 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all policy compliant info with Ottawa Senators. Should have read nom statement better :) Delete per nom as redundant because of the other Senators pages listed in the statement.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Peter Fleet 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete teams are seperate. per WP:SYNTH.  T Rex  | talk  03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH --Djsasso 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont Delete If it is deleted, then information written about the Ottawa Senators history will be deleted. For example, the financing struggles, etc. I would dispute that all of this is in the other articles. To delete would indicate A) that the article has not been read, B) that a group of Wikipedians is unwilling to allow other than their points of views to be heard. Also, complaints have been heard about the amount of History info in the Ottawa Senators article specifically. Therefore, instead I suggest that people willing to take the time to document the history go ahead and edit it. I believe that people will find that these teams sharing the name 'Ottawa Senators' are linked historically by various factors, including name, people, city, etc. This is not a denial that the three clubs are different, rather that they are linked historically. It would be a shame to not have that overall view present. Alaney2k 05:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you are still missing the point in that the history is all there and is all linked in each of the 3 articles. Each of the articles mentions that the other ones exist and any user can follow the wikilink to those pages. That is sort of the point of wikipedia actually. You don't have to have everything all on one page, and as a matter of fact its preferred that you don't have it all on one page due to page size issues. --Djsasso 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do not delete The financing history is not in the current Sens article. Secondly, I have tried to put the links in the various articles and they keep getting deleted, some of them by you djssaso. I can't even mention the Cleveland Browns as a comparison! :-) :-) Anyway, since there had been comments about too much history on the current Sens page that I moved text to the 'History of' article. Anyway, it makes a reasonable sized article and frees up space for the current Sens article to focus on the current. This is the point of the other 'History of' articles, such as NY Rangers and Leafs. Alaney2k 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and Expand Accordingly, otherwise Delete I would be in favour of the article being changed to Ice hockey in Ottawa, Ontario, where you document the actual hockey history of the town. The creation of the Ottawa HC, of the Ottawa District Hockey Association, the Silver Seven, the Senators, the Sr. Senators, the CJHL, the gazillion jr. leagues that popped up, how the Ottawa 67's were bred from the CJHL, the Ottawa Nationals of the WHA, so on and so on and so on... There is useful info in the article... but I too think Alaney2k is pushing his own agenda... DMighton 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do not delete Whoa. That's much more than one article. Yes I have synthesized from the 3 Sens articles. Much, if not most of the text is not mine. I put it together, but, these are facts that have occurred, not my 'speculation'. There ARE links between the teams. How is that not neutral? In fact those links have been present in the 3 Sens articles for a while now, and were not all highlighted or originated by me. The first owner of the current NHL club had a campaign to win an NHL franchise called 'Bring Back The Senators' with a representative of the past players, a representative of a past owner. It was prominently displayed in the campaign materials about the number of Stanley Cups won. After the franchise was won, the president of the league 'reinstated' them. Controversial and not followed up on, but nevertheless it happened. I think we could remove the sentence about operating under the reinstated franchise, as the only proof I found was the certificate, and Total Hockey doesn't mention it. But then TH doesn't mention everything about the NHL. Not to denigrate it, only to mention that there is more than the NHL's books to consider. The second club is linked to the first by having an owner who owned a piece of both phases, consecutive seasons, played in the arena of the first. The second club is linked to the third by the owner's descendents of the second club giving permission to the new club to use the name. I have given references for everything or tried to. The links shown between the teams also are similar to situations encountered by other NHL clubs, as shown in those articles. E.g., Vancouver Canucks have played in multiple leagues, with different ownership. You would not say that the Vancouver Canucks of the WHL moved to the NHL. The WHL franchise would have terminated and a new NHL franchise started. The Montreal Canadiens have a franchise discontinuity in 1911 where George Kennedy bought the rights to the Canadiens name, but bought the Haileybury club, not the Les Canadiens club. The Les Canadiens franchise instead went to Toronto. The Toronto Maple Leafs are listed as starting in 1917, but that was a temporary franchise owned by the league, operated by a separate company. The Cup won by the Arenas seems to be claimed by the Leafs. These are all things that are part of the history of those teams, so it would appear that no consistent policy exists. In any case, the differences and discontinuities are mentioned as well. So, my vote, is to work towards improving the article. Alaney2k 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. While the editor has done much good work on early hockey articles (hell, I gave him a barnstar for it), he has been pushing a determined POV that several unrelated clubs must be the same team by virtue of having the same nickname, to the degree that WP:POINT violations have been made.  While the details of the dispute have been exhaustively listed on the appropriate pages, WP:HOCKEY does have a consistent policy:  teams that have demonstrated common ownership, players, recognition of records, nicknames, corporate structures and unbroken lineage of seasons played (such as the Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers) have unitary articles.  Those with no common ownership, no players in common, no recognition of records, no common corporate structure and breaks in continuity stretching over decades, such as the various Senators teams, don't.  If there are facts in this article pertaining to the individual teams, they should be in the individual articles.    RGTraynor  13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: do not delete I came up with my 'biased' point of view from working on those early ice hockey articles. I did not even know about the Senior Sens until I read the recollections of Frank Finnigan and others in his daughter's book. Also, Lord of the Rinks and Deceptions and Doublecross and Robinson's book on the Sens. I did not know that the NHL suspended the Sens franchise in 1935. I assumed they just shut down. On the same page in the Globe and Mail of that day with the info on the Eagles shutting down is an article about the Sens' upcoming season. We are not talking about the field of science or anthropology here folks. There are articles on singers and their current CDs on Wikipedia. There are NHL articles out there that have no attributions or references. I have attributed the information in the 'History of' article, and tried to cover the clubs with reasonable and interesting information. What the real objection should be is not that the article exists, but that my style or choice of words is misleading. That is not my intent. My intent, like the early history articles, is to provide all of the information. I think it's wild that the NHL would provide a certificate of reinstatement, then not follow that up! But it doesn't make sense to put that in an article without referring to the previous clubs. So, I urge you folks instead to consider a case for improving the article, not deletion. Alaney2k 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on one of the talk pages, fully one third of the History section in the Ottawa Senators article is talking directly about the original team. The links, tenuous as they are, are very much front and centre.  The issue with this article is that it unnecessarily combines three articles into one, and therefore tries to argue that three different franchises are the same.  This is original research as it was created to advance a position.  Whatever new information you have added to this article, please feel free to add to the appropriate article for whichever team it is most pertinent to.  Incidentally, you only need to say "keep/do not delete" once. Resolute 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote is still don't delete If I were to transfer the text from the History of article to the current Sens article, the proportion would be even higher. I do not want people to think I've changed my mind about deletion. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I've worked on the article a bit. I have tried to make it more clear about the distinctions, though I do need to work on the first and second paragraphs. (Please try to read it again. I know, I know, it doesn't taste good. :-) ) I think partly some of the issue with the article is due to some of the text being unfinished. I copied it over from the existing articles and expanded it, but I would not say it is ideal. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The 'histories' of the 'three' Ottawa Senators franchises, are already covered by their respective articles. GoodDay 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've copied over the text from the 'History of' article to the the original and current era Sens articles. I predict however, that the Reinstatement paragraph won't survive as-is after making the trip. I think feelings are quite dead set against it. However, I have tried to cover both sides of the argument about the certificate, and it does fit in with the info about the banners, etc... Alaney2k 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RS1900 10:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the links to the article. The redirect from History of the Ottawa Senators is still there and will have to be deleted too. Alaney2k 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You realize this is a discussion about deleting the article. Not a discussion about what you are currently changing in the article each step of the way? --Djsasso 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Duh. :-) Alaney2k 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, was that a ' [WP:MOCKERY OF PROCESS] '? Maybe it was. :-) Lighten up, I'm trying to be helpful. Alaney2k 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete (see T-rex). Also the article of the Original Senators should not include the expansion team, it's long enough. --Hasek is the best 02:05, 6 September 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.