Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey


 * 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   merge to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable club hockey organization, limited if any third-party coverage. Articles on similar teams regularly deleted, see Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Ice Hockey and Articles for deletion/Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey.  Grsz 11  13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable recreational club level hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge: to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. Club team below NCAA hockey.   Ravenswing  15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well-established college hockey team. Has played in national tournaments. Has received coverage in Pittsburgh Post Gazette and Observer-Reporter newspapers.  --GrapedApe (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except its not an actual college hockey team. It's a club hockey team. There is a big difference. National tournaments for recreational hockey is not notable. If it was a national tournament for a NCAA team that would be different. Local papers covering local sports are generally not considered good enough to establish notability. If they were, millions of local little leaguers would have pages on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the cited newspapers aren't mere "local newspapers," since the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is the largest newspaper in Western Pennsylvania, covering the Pittsburgh metro area (pop. 2.4 million) and the Observer-Reporter covers southwestern Pennsylvania (pop. 202,897 alone in Washington County).--GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change anything, even the New York Times does news stories about local sports etc and those aren't considered good enough to establish notability either. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep ACHA Division I hockey teams can be very sophisticated programs, operating at a high level and receiving significant followings and press, (press is demonstrated in the article). They are certainly not what I'd call "recreational". Not all club sports and teams are notable, but being a "club" team, meaning it is essentially a self supporting program not funded by an athletic department, does not automatically make them non-notable. Certainly local notability could apply here too. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly some may be. Penn State Nittany Lions men's ice hockey, Penn State Nittany Lions women's ice hockey, Lindenwood Lady Lions women's ice hockey for winning numerous championships, being the subject of sustained (not just one article) third-party coverage, and in all three of these cases, pending a move from ACHA to NCAA. However, none of the articles in Category:College men's ice hockey teams in the United States are club teams.  Grsz 11  01:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And recreational is not an appropriate categorization. It's an intercollegiate competition all the same, just not the highest level in the U.S.  Grsz 11  01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not counting PSU's transitional teams, only 58 schools sponsor NCAA D1 men's hockey out of the 335 total Div 1 schools. It is worth examining whether some of these club teams may in fact be notable, considering that there are probably 300 wikipedia articles on NCAA D1 men's basketball teams. Are all those teams more notable even though they may not be nearly as competitive in their particular sport? Same could be said for rugby, and other club sports with similarly sophisticated national governing bodies. I know there is precedent for deleting any club team, hockey or otherwise, but I think that could use some reexamination. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a worthy discussion at WT:HOCKEY. There are 57 men's Division I teams in ACHA, and with over 300 total teams, it is the largest governing body of intercollegiate ice hockey. If you subtract the teams that have NCAA and ACHA Division I teams (there are a number of them) it isn't a terribly large number.  Grsz 11  02:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that this is a well-written article that is scrupulously sourced to reliable sources, and it has good content without any POV'ed language. In sum, it's a net asset to the encyclopedia. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not, almost all the sources present are either primary sources which are not good enough for notability or are stat/listing type pages which again are not good enough to establish notability. If you want to establish notability you will need to find articles in either national publications about the team, or in news papers from different cities than these teams play in. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That statement is not supported by WP:GNG. --GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It most definitely is For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage (emphasis mine). Local coverage of local sports is considered routine news coverage and is not enough to cover notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're saying articles have to have more than a local (regional coverage such as the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and/or the Observer-Reporter than most of the Jr. teams, College teams, and even minor pro up to AHL are screwed because the majority of coverage is from regional sources, league sources. Very few have coverage in national sources unless they've been in a national championship or other nationally covered event. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really because magazines like The Hockey News follow D1 and pro relatively closely. Thus you can be assured that there are usually some sources. Junior isn't really even questionable because all the teams are covered here in Canada heavily in the media right down to the lower levels. It does get questionable once you get to the Junior B & C level I suppose. US junior hockey however is also questionable apart from the USHL and NAHL which get fairly good coverage in magazines like the hockey news and in the media up in Canada, but anything below that doesn't really. At these lower levels the leagues would be notable still but I don't know that the individual teams are. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DJ Sasso is wrong in his interpretation of "local" news sources. Within the context of WP:GNG, "local" means publications with very limited coverage, like village newsletters.  The largest newspaper from a major American city (the 22nd largest metro area) and the largest newspaper covering a 4 county region are not "local."  Under DJ Sasso's interpretation, woe to any sports program that doesn't attract the coverage of the NY Times and Le Monde.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, all major papers have local interest articles. This has been discussed at length on the notability page and in other locations. And the consensus generally comes down to any paper that is local to the topic big or small is considered local coverage. This is why local politicians such as city councillors do not generally get articles even though papers like the New York Times covers them since they are a local New York City councillor. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of an example....Would you be shocked if I told you that 48/51 New York City Council members had articles: [[Membership of the New York City Council.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I knew New York was a bad example but only used it because we had already talked about the New York Times. Most city's councillors do not get articles. Generally articles are restricted to mayors and national level representatives. In other words people who are talked about in papers outside their local area. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) To expand on an earlier quote. Another "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include, but are not limited to, newspapers, community papers, magazines, and journals representing a local city, town, or region, local television and radio stations (and their associated websites), and websites providing media to an area.". The papers you point to are all of those things. (emphasis mine) -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Washington and Jefferson Presidents. For now, under current guidelines I say merge, however if they are changed via consenus/discussion I'd say keep being that the article is well written and has usable information. In the very least that info would be good to keep in some form via a merge. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As for the argument to keep the article, I would say it is different from the Georgia Tech and Georgia discussions referenced in the original deletion. Pretty much all of the ACHA DIII teams and at most of the ACHA DII teams are more recreational club programs than non-NCAA intercollegiate programs. The line starts to blur with the very top DII teams, such as Grand Valley or Kentucky. ACHA DI team are well organized and usually have high respect on and off campus. The level of play for ACHA DI is generally a notch below NCAA DIII, however the top half could put up respectable numbers in NCAA DIII and top 5-10 could really do some damage in NCAA DIII and put up a challenge against low level NCAA DI teams. (Penn State did beat NCAA DI Robert Morris about 4-5 years ago.) Let's not split hairs and for sake of argument say that ACHA DI is lumped into the same level as NCAA DIII, I don't believe we have any separate articles for NCAA DIII teams? If NCAA DIII teams not notable to have separate articles, certainly ACHA DI teams aren't. If they are-then this definitely calls for more discussion.


 * An ACHA DI team can have a separate article if: The program is in the process of transitioning to NCAA. (examples mentioned earlier). Or the program was once a member of the NCAA before moving to ACHA DI, ex/ Kent State, Ohio.


 * A few other things that make an ACHA DI team article notable: Is the program considered Varsity Club level by the university? Iowa State, Liberty Univ., Penn State (pre NCAA announcement), etc are designated as varsity club teams for their attention on and off campus and usually funded by either a sub department of the Athletic department... Another criteria to look at are NAIA schools, (NAIA doesn't sponsor ice hockey since 1980s). Teams like Lindenwood, Davenport, SUNY Canton and some others…include their ACHA teams and fund them as part of their mainstream athletic departments. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the ECAC Division III hockey schools have an independent hockey article. Heck, I couldn't find any with a standalone athletics article.   Ravenswing  16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any either. BUT it doesn't mean they're not notable, it could just be because no user has gotten around to it. A few months ago I finished creating articles for the rest of the NCAA DI teams (Lots of stubs left if anyone has info to work on them, they actually should look more like this W&J article btw). The hockey community on Wikipedia is a bit smaller than sports like basketball or football. I've seen NAIA, DIII, DII, and DI articles for those sports (example:WP:CFBTEAMS). If we at WP:HOCKEY find the same/similar levels of notability for collegiate hockey our structure would be articles for NCAA DI, NCAA DII (the few existing NE-10 schools), NCAA DIII, NAIA (a handfull of schools playing ACHA DI), and ACHA DI teams at NCAA schools. I wouldn't go below ACHA DI because then it's more like other club sports, and at some schools its more recreational/intramural. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is unlike say college football which as you say have pages right down to the lowly depths because football is huge in the US. College hockey however is not and its notability drops off really fast. Some D1 teams would barely make the cut, nevermind lower levels. Clearly I am not advocating removing D1 schools but anything below D2 is definitely not notable unless there are special reasons for it, in general US college hockey just doesn't have much notability as a whole beyond D1. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about what is essentially the sports culture of the US. Part of it may be that NCAA DIII and NAIA football schools still have on average 1,000-5,000 seat stadiums, where some DI teams have around 1,000 seat arenas and NCAA DIII ACHA DI teams generally play in 500-1,000 seat arenas. A large factor in the attendance could be the number of teams concentrated in the Northern parts of the US. There's 6 NCAA DI athletic departments in Mass. but with hockey there's 10. After a quick search I’m finding a number of sources for some NCAA DIII teams, so at the very least WP:HOCKEY’s policy should be similar to that of football: Please note that all NCAA schools are presumed notable, since there will always be reliable independent sources documenting their notability. And even with not the NCAA DIII teams would most likely pass GNG with such sources. Regardless, this article poses the question do we regard ACHA DI teams like other sports projects deal with NAIA teams? Bhockey10 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ... for one thing, the college football Wikiproject's notion of notability is pretty much insane; I've had battles over their insistence that guys who coached five games at a cow college in 1908 are, and should be, notable by definition. That being said, they're wrong if they think that Div III teams pass GNG as a matter of course.  Really?  Of the Div III college hockey teams whose games I've attended, UMass-Boston and Wentworth Institute barely merit a weekend-roundup paragraph in Boston papers.  Heck, American International College (which plays, nominally, Division I) doesn't get more than that in the Springfield papers.  The only substantial coverage concerning the UMB Beacons I've ever seen (and I'm an alum, so I pay attention) was a few years ago when they had a 43 year old defenseman, a fellow who'd gone back for his degree, provoking a human interest story.  We're running a ways afield of this AfD, though, and this discussion probably should be ported to WP:HOCKEY.   Ravenswing  18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 43, really!!? I agree that their definition is a bit strange, your example of coach bumpkin at cow college for half a season in 1908 is a good point, I doubt there would be even Sources. their notability definition is also contrasting because the first sentence says: Schools that participate in college football and are members of the NCAA or NAIA are considered notable as long as there are independent, non-routine references documenting their notability. That's probably a better thing to follow rather than limiting articles to NCAA DI and NCAA DIII (or deleting them just because they're ACHA DI teams) I would say ALL NCAA DI teams are notable, with some digging there's always going to be at least a cpl sources. If Bentley turns their program around and builds a powerhouse we'd see more articles than human interest pieces. One of the main aspects of Journalism is write for your reader not yourself. Bentley and AIC are smaller schools and just don't have the number of current students, alumni, and athletic fans as say BU or UMass. So back to this AfD are the sources here independent non-routine sources that satisfy GNG. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I will agree that certain club college teams are more notable than the countless Canadian junior B and C teams we have articles on. We could use a purge of a lot of those articles that by no stretch of the imagination can be considered notable. However, this is most definitely a Canada vs US issue.  Grsz 11  19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above I agree with some of that, we probably push the envelope on the Junior B or C. However, many people underestimate just how much coverage we have of hockey up here. I can read about junior B games sometimes in my local newspaper on the east coast in Halifax for teams on the west coast in BC. My !vote on this however had nothing to do with US or Canada. Just that club teams don't really have coverage outside of local interest stories. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a valid argument that Grsz11 points out, a number of the ACHA DI teams are more notable than Jr. teams. The University of Arizona Icecats average 5,000 fans per game, and against rivals like ASU sellout the 9,000-seat arena they play at. Attendance numbers that many NCAA DI teams would love to have! All of the NCAA DI teams pass GNG and WP:Icehockey guidelines, and probably a good number of NCAA DIII teams would, I would guess there's some ACHA DI teams that do as well. The original deletion argument is that "Articles on similar teams regularly deleted." This is not the case as W&J Ice hockey article is on a ACHA DI rather than a low level ACHA DIII team that fails WP:HOCKEY guidelines and GNG. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One needs to remember its not just the people who show up to watch that count, its the people in far away places. But anyways thats going off on a tangent. My main reason for deletion is lack of sources outside of non-independent/local ones. Find me papers in other cities that talk about the team (I don't care how big the city is despite comments above that suggest I require the Times) and I am happy. I do think however this is a page that belongs more on the icehockey wiki than here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm generally on your side with the current standards WP:HOCKEY has right now, but even more than that I'm on Wikipedia's side- Could you point me to any part of GNG or WP:HOCKEY that specifies that established, regional (local as you called them) publications are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability/GNG requirments? Bhockey10 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of this AfD, there is no requirement for non-local sources to denote notability. Wikipedia ranges from international to local. "Jimbo's No" speaks to this in that Wikipedia can range in coverage of obscure topics that are notable in "local" or "specific" academic disciplines (as in Jimbo's example) just as much as what is notable to a particular geographic locality, and in this case, it could be Washington, PA or even the college itself. What is important is that it is NPOV and not OR, as provided by stipulations for GNG. All of them are satisfied in this case: 1) "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed", 2) sources have "editorial integrity", 3) they are secondary (and multiple); 4) are independent of the subject (not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases"), and in addition, this article does not seem to violate WP:NOT. So then, based on existing criteria, this topic is "presumed" to be notable. Only existing precedent in the hockey wikiproject says that it is not, however, wikiprojects to not own articles, and the article's topic also falls under the scope of Washington, PA and Washington & Jefferson College as well as hockey, and perhaps others. The bigger question, is this a natural and needed break-out article of Washington & Jefferson Presidents? Perhaps not, but that is a merge question, not an AfD. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous guidelines and policies that indicate more is needed than just local sources. Your points number 3 and 4 are the ones that local sources concern, and in this particular article itself there is only 1 source that is secondary, the rest are primary. And of that one secondary source its local which many people consider to be non-independent due to the nature of how local reporting is done. If the team is as notable as y'all are indicating it shouldn't be hard to find some sources from outside the location of the university. I would also note its not the hockey projects precedent that local isn't good enough, its been the case for all the sports projects. And is also common to the various projects that cover politics. Its by no means unique to hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please link one policy to that effect. BTW, the two newspapers in references 1 & 2 are both independent, secondary sources. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except one of the links is a bad link and doesn't go to any page. As for linking WP:N has right on it that routine news coverage is not good enough. Local coverage of a local sports team is routine news coverage as quoted above. A local news paper will routinely cover the local sports teams in their newspaper as a matter of course. This doesn't establish notability, but rather that the team exists. Which is fine for trying to meet WP:V but doesn't help with WP:N which says that it must not be routine news coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Link rot doesn't affect notability, nor do sources have to be on-line, nor is notability temporary. We have to assume good faith there, but perhaps someone can enlighten us to the original article content or fix the link. BTW, to be precise, WP:N is a well established guideline. Whether the coverage is routine, is also dependent on the definition of "routine". "Routine" in the context of sports seems to mean the reporting of scores and prescheduled events. It doesn't seem routine for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as that paper does not have a beat reporter covering W&J in any sport. Does the Observer-Reporter cover the team beyond the routine reports of just scores and box scores, such as with feature articles? I honestly don't know the answer to that. But, IMO, would make it notable in the sphere of its locality. However, my main point is, irregardless of this AfD, that non-local sources are not required for notability, and there is no policy or guideline to that effect. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say link rot did or that it was temporary. I simply said that it doesn't link to anything so I can't verify that it is anything more than a passing mention. One of the reasons we require multiple references from multiple sources is so that things can be verified even if some of the sources listed can't be accessed. As such with only 1 (or 2 if you count both) the notability cannot be verified because there is nothing to use except the one article. Why are people fighting so hard against finding sources? Instead of arguing about it, time might be better spent if supporters looked for more sources? Would it not? Even if you do accept that local sources are good enough you need more than 2, you need multiple. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Wiktionary, Multiple means "Having more than one element, part, component or function. According to Webster's, Multiple means "consisting of, including, or involving more than one".  So, there's another claim that isn't supported by consensus. -GrapedApe (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is, if you have spent any time around afd at all, you would know people usually require more than two sources. That being said there is currently only one source that can be verified not more than one, aka not multiple. Again, wikilawyering instead of actually trying to improve the article. All the time spent arguing and the article could have easily been improved to the point where its unquestionably notable. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to demonstrate that you are misrepresenting notability policies and word meaning. Please see WP:OWN, as you appear to be attempting to own this AFD: "Find me papers in other cities that talk about the team (I don't care how big the city is despite comments above that suggest I require the Times) and I am happy.." (emphasis mine).--GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is just rediculous. I say me, because its my opinion, which I do own. In other words I am willing to change my !vote and am more than open to changing my opinion if you can find me some more sources. That is what AFD is about, discussion about the article in question and changing of peoples opinions by providing sources and the like. It's not even possible to own an afd. Own is about articles. You are just trying to be combative at this point and purposefully trying to twist words. I am not saying you have to please me to get the article kept, I am saying you have to be able to proove to me that the team is notable to get my opinion to change. If you truely thought the article was notable you would provide some more sources to back it up. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that WP:ROUTINE covers actual sporting events (it's even listed underWP:EVENT) not the teams. I.e. an article about a Washington & Jefferson hockey vs. West Virginia hockey game, or more commonly appears around Wikipedia a rivalry between two teams or schools is not notable. routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[3] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article. I believe that is where your logic of local news coverage comes in as well. Local news coverage of a game falls under WP:ROUTINE, now if Washington & Jefferson and West Virginia played a game and W&J won 300-299 and it was covered by the Hockey news, NY Times, CBC, NHL, etc.. b/c it shattered all the hockey records, that would be national news coverage that makes the event/game notable.Bhockey10 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is one of the instances that are routine. But routine is much more than that, local interest stories are often cited as being routine coverage, or to stick with sports, the local little leaguer who has had a really good season and so the paper does a story on him. Is he interesting? Of course. Is he noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia? No. Low level local teams would be no different. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That hypothetical case would fall under "Notability of high school and pre-high school athletes" and/or WP:BLP1E. College teams, even at this club level, wouldn't necessarily be analogous. BTW, I haven't continued discussing this because of the immediate Afd, but I think the discussion regarding general local sources and notability it is an interesting and important one, and it perhaps warrants a revisitation of notability of some of these ACHA D1 teams in general, for instance, the UofA team mentioned above. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it is perhaps true this lengthy comment section has gotten away from the focus of the actual Afd. In any case, access to the archives of that local Washington paper is unfortunately restricted to a pay service, so it hampers non-locals like me in such searches. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability of high school and pre-high school athletes was created specifically with the notion in mind that local is not good enough. Its why we created that whole section a couple months ago because the community insisted on it because it was found that local papers were not considered independent when it came to local sports and they wanted to codify it in writing so it was clear to people that articles should not be created on such people even though they people could try and argue that they had sources such as the routine interviews of local stars. As for BLP1E, that wouldn't be applicable because a season is a series of events not a single event. But yes it is an important discussion and probably doesn't belong here, it comes up fairly often on WP:N but consensus usually favors a case by case study leaning towards local tends to be routine. Lots of guidelines/policies hint at local being not quite good enough but none are black and white, but I suppose thats the case with most issues on wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability for high school and pre-high school athletes. We aren't talking about individuals; we need to keep the focus on what the actual issue is.  Grsz 11  15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the issue, whether or not the one (or two) local sources are good enough to establish notability for the team. So we need to draw parallels to existing guidelines/policies. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Graped and Crazy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge: to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. Racepacket (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Division I college hockey teams are notable. This team has received enough coverage to satisfy requirements for keeping this article. Having played in national tournaments is even more evidence of notability. Dolovis (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't Division I NCAA, which is the highest level, but ACHA for club teams.  Grsz 11  00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, its approximately 3 levels below that of NCAA Div 1. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And that isn't Dolovis's only point. He also believes that there's enough secondary coverage and that the national tournaments make it notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that was his only point? -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to be playing at a high enough level for automatic notability, and nothing else convinces me that it meets any of the notability guidelines. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (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.