Talk:Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

message: So what is the age group of this league?  Can we get a firm number? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 17-20 with a general limit of 4 16 year olds.  DMighton 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  So the folks in this league, for the most part, could play pro.  It's not a "kids" league or a "youth" team as implied by others?  Is the league professional? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Substantively correct, despite Robert's persistent attempts at characterizing hockey junior leagues as "kiddie" or "juvenile" teams.  Since players can play in the NHL at age 18 (and do so in European pro leagues and minor leagues at younger than that), there's considerable overlap, and many players have played for junior teams and NHL or other pro teams in the same season.  Ravenswing 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is to misrepresent the team - the team is an amateur youth team. To make out it is anything else is, to be blunt, dishonest. Robertsteadman 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (sighs) By that standard, so are all college teams, in the same age group and paying their players even less, but you aren't advocating that college teams are non-notable ... surprising, really, given how far fewer college alums make the NHL as compared to junior alums.  That being said, whatever the reasons are behind your lack of understanding are murky, and probably not relevant.  Ravenswing 08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: North America is not "most of the world".  Wikipedia allows for cultural and regional differences.  In the case of Junior B hockey specifically, 16 year olds will no longer be allowed to participate following next season.  The age restrictions will be 17-20 beginning 2007-08.  Whether the league is pro or not is not a simple question.  I tend to think of Junior hockey as being amateur, but the NCAA has differing opinions depending on the level (ie: Tier I is considered pro under their draconian rules, but Tier II, which includes Jr B is not).  Regardless, I do not believe this is an important factor in arguing whether these team articles should exist.  Certantly player bios would fail WP:BIO, but with the teams themselves, we are talking organizations that are integral parts of their communities, some of which date back to the early days of hockey.  Articles about these teams are as notable as articles about schools, roads, even the counties that also exist within and around these communities.  Resolute 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the age range for this level of hockey is roughly the same as college sport, which agreed to be notable.  An age based argument is not a valid reason against the existance of these articles. Resolute 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said I supported all college sport being included - only that which is genuinely notable should be included. If a Junior B team has done something genuinely notable it could be included as could a college team, otherwise these are youth teams and have no place on WP. Robertsteadman 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that this is the direction this process will ultimately head in.  I would ask, however, why do you favor a merge? Resolute 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure smear - several editors have said that it should be merged and yet you want to ignore that and be offensive insstead. What really hurts WP is fiulling it full of rubbish and non-notable stuff. I, and a few others here, are trying to improve WP rather than use it as a tool to promote out favoured sport. Robertsteadman 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be two other editors who think it should be merged, neither of whom were hitherto active in WP:HOCKEY, against the consensus of several other editors who've uniformly demonstrated both interest and expertise in hockey.  Just out of curiosity, what misrepresentations did BoojiBoy make?  You have been banned, and more than once.  You are flouting consensus, a charge frequently levied against you judging from your talk page.  You are trying to get outsiders in to back up your POV.  Obviously you're passionate about your POV, but in my opinion you've long since stepped over the element of WP:CON which states "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith."  Ravenswing 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The balance - as this debate is happening in two places for some reason - is fairly even. We really need to take this to RFC - and when I get teh time I'll start it,unless someone get's there first. I do wait with baited breath for the rest of the article which will clearly outline the notabaility which was soon to be posted..... until then let's leave it and open this to a much wider community. All I want is to ensure that WP remains a verifiable and factual encyclopedia of notable people, places, things, events, etc. and I am very concerned at the amount of stuff which, even though some repeat a mantra of "clearly notable" have little or no actual evidence for it. Certainly until there is extra info available a merge is the logical step, or to userfy these stubs - but, as I said, RFC is the obvious route. Robertsteadman 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're seriously asserting that the balance is "fairly even?"  You filed not one, but two AfDs on the article.  The second debate ran two votes to Delete, and seventeen to Keep.  Under the circumstances, RfC isn't a "logical" or "obvious" route so much as a stubborn or petulant one: venue shopping in the hopes of finding editors (and possibly preferably those ignorant of hockey) somewhere to back up your POV.  Contributing to the general Notability (athlete) debate is a constructive effort, and if you manage to swing consensus over to ban articles on amateur teams, that's another matter.  This isn't constructive.  Ravenswing 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting our facts straight

message: Consensus has been reached. The only person post-AfD who wants a merge is Rob. It's gone on for five days, and the AfD was another five days previous. The matter is closed. If you feel that this is a horrible miscarriage of justice, go ahead and file an RFC. It's time to move on. I'm posting this to associated users' talk pages as well. you know, this has really torpedoed my wikibreak  RasputinAXP  c 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but if you read the whole debate (in both places) you will see I am not the only person wantng a merge. Consensus has not been reached. You. and a couple of others, are forcing a decision on the community which has not been reached. That is not in the spirit of WP. It is also not in the interests of this article whereby opening debate further would be a good idea rather than burying your head in the sand and saying la, la, la over and over.Robertsteadman 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have removed the merge tag from the article again

message: To those wishing to comment in the RFC, please note the discussion on this talk page, the related discussion in Talk:Thunder Bay Junior B Hockey League, and the AFD which resulted in a keep as noted at the top of the page. BoojiBoy 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  (listens to the sound of crickets)  Ravenswing 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC talk