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 The consensus here supports the view that seasons of minor-league teams are not inherently notable, and this article infringes on WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOT#STATS . Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Louisville Bats season

2009 Louisville Bats season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These have not been properly nominated. Explanation below. Mandsford 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another grouping of non-notable minor league season articles; precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Binghamton Mets season. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all immediately. Separate articles for minor-league team seasons? We recently deleted an article for Lindsey Vonn in 2009 I believe--these are far less notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2009 Louisville Bats season is the only one that can be considered for deletion. In reviewing the others, I see that they haven't even been nominated. One can't just say "all in Category:So and so". If you wish to nominate these, you have to follow the procedures that are described in WP:AFDHOWTO. Sorry. Mandsford 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yes, I see the precedent. Who says? Sub-top-flight season articles widely exist in the soccer team articles, and they certainly exist in the college football and basketball team articles, areas where no one can claim that they represented the "highest level" possible. Why would anyone claim that coverage that would meet the GNG not exist? Let's look at a couple of the cities Wizardman cites. Ottawa? Columbus? Charlotte? No one questions whether the Columbus Blue Jackets has enough press coverage to sustain season articles. No one questions whether the Ottawa Senators or the Ottawa Rough Riders merit season articles. No one questions the ability of the Charlotte press to source Charlotte Bobcats season articles. Why so here? Plainly this particular article needs sourcing, but I don't doubt that sourcing exists. I want more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a deletion ground.  Ravenswing  18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the challenge thus far for these articles in meeting GNG has been to find coverage that is not routine. None of the articles nominated to date have yet met that threshold. -Dewelar (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It simply is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Agreed with Ravenswing. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to both of you, let's be honest. We barely have the manpower to keep up with major league season creations, which were originally only made because the team articles would have been far too long to include them. Most minor league articles are only a handful of sentences, and do not have this problem. We could throw the 2 sentences about the 2009 season into the main minor league article without any troubles. Perhaps they can be sourced, but does that mean the season is notable, or just the team? It usually ends up being the latter. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that we should delete on the grounds that it's too hard to handle them. Throwing a blanket guideline for all team's seasons is not the way we should go. If I could look at one season and see that it's not notable, then I would vote delete, but the direction you are taking this is destructive. It would set the principle that not minor league team's seasons are notable. That's not how we should handle this. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, although I believe the circumstances under which such a page could be considered notable in and of itself are going to be mostly limited to pre-TV-era (somewhat later for the PCL) seasons and outliers like the Mexican League. -Dewelar (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is objecting on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's just that this seems so obvious to some that perhaps editors don't bother with providing an argument. My argument is that minor league teams simply aren't notable enough for single season articles, perhaps save in extraordinary cases but I don't see that here. I've seen much more notable topics get deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS, even with loads of sources. The sources documenting this are surely routine coverage and nothing particularly notable. I can't comment on why single season articles are OK for non top-flight soccer teams (though soccer teams can advance up tiers so there's a difference there) but as to the comparison with college football--many college teams get extraordinary coverage in the US press and thus get more than routine coverage--a key criterion for notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per established guidelines, minor league team-seasons are not inherently notable. This article makes no assertion of notability. -Dewelar (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a matter of failing the notability guidelines. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's face it, there is no prospect that this will ever be worked on again. Who would want to spend their spare time on going back through the news and reconstructing the '09 Louisville baseball season? Not surprisingly, a lot of these stop getting maintained after awhile, as in this case which started and ended in May 2009. While trying to keep track of the day-to-day activity of a minor league season while it's going on is not that interesting, the effort of trying to review the day-to-day happenings of an old season is something that I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend their spare time upon. This type of article is tolerated while the season is going on and someone is following "their" team's progress, but as an event, there's nothing really notable going on. Ultimately, it's a collection of statistics (WP:STAT) or the daily news (WP:NEWS); the usual outcome is that this is OK for major league teams (MLB, NFL, etc), but it doesn't carry over to the minors. Mandsford 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have experimented with some minor league season pages at the Bullpen and have had some success both with fleshing out articles and with popularity among readers. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Note that the bullpen has page views stats at the bottom of the pages and the pages I have written are being looked at by more than just myself. I feel that minor league season pages can be done and received well here given time and dedication. To state that "there's nothing really notable going on" is yet another example of WPs elitist attitude towards minor league baseball. "the effort of trying to review the day-to-day happenings of an old season is something that I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend their spare time upon." I, and apparently others, like to relive the past years of our favorite teams just like fans of major league teams do. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I read this and in my head I hear "I have no rational argument for notability, so I'm going to appeal to emotion and pray that it's enough to convince people." BR Bullpen is exactly the right place for these kinds of pages -- a wiki that is specific to the subject matter at hand. -Dewelar (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you write and I hear "I have no rational response to your post so I'll be as condescending as the voices in my head allow me to be." Kinston eagle (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of which renders what I said wrong :) . Really, the rational response to your argument is what it has always been, and what I've said repeatedly in these discussions: "Demonstrate why these seasons should be considered notable under WP:GNG. Bring us something that goes beyond routine coverage". It gets tiresome repeating that, really, and one of these days perhaps you or some other like-minded editor will actually do it rather than wasting your time on arguments as flawed as that one. -Dewelar (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Kinston has demonstrated, this type of thing is welcome at the baseball-reference.com wiki, whose policies on the notability of the minutiae of minor league baseball seasons are more friendly than those here. Like Dewelar, I haven't yet seen a Wikipedia policy advanced for keeping this article. Mandsford 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The deletionists are claiming this isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the more they explain, the more it sounds like that they want to delete the article simply because WP:IDONTWANNADOTHEWORK. I think the Louisville Bats have plenty enough reliable sources throughout their season to clearly establish general notability guidelines. We don't have a policy for this type of article because nobody has ever wanted to make an effort to write an article like this for a minor league season. Apparently the guy that made it didn't want to finish it, either. Whatever, it's still notable and has a large amount of potential. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you're arguing that it's notable because you believe it's notable, with no actual basis or proof thereof. Care to elaborate? Or, better yet, back it up? -Dewelar (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like to repeat myself. The article has potential to be the definitive reference for this team's season. There are hundreds of articles from reliable sources to help expand the article and tell the story of how the season progressed in month subsections, also including summaries of key games. As the article has potential and a plethora of coverage from reliable sources, I feel this article meets the General Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia. Please don't ask me to post this a 3rd time. Thanks Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 22:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked through that list of sources. On the first page, there are five stories from the local newspaper, one story about the team's GM, one story about how baseball bats are connected to the city of Louisville, one story about the team in the context of it being an affiliate of the Reds, one story about the team's radio contract, and one story from a minor league baseball site about a game being postponed due to rain. The second page of results were entirely from the local paper. The third page was nine results from the local paper, and one from the local paper of the Bats' opponent on a particular day. In other words, not a single one of the first thirty hits goes beyond routine coverage while also apparently failing to meet WP:DIVERSE, therefore not satisfying the requirements of WP:NEVENT. How much further would you like me to drill down to find the potential of which you speak? -Dewelar (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So as not to be accused of giving up too quickly because WP:IDONTWANNADOTHEWORK, here are a few more pages worth of results. Page 4 has six articles from local paper, one from a local business journal about the team's ballpark, two more local papers of Bats opponents, and one hit from the Bats' own website. Page 5 has four local paper hits, one opponent local paper hit, one Bats website hit, a hit from MLB.com repeating the Reds affiliation story from page 1, a general story about the IL playoffs from the MiLB website mentioned above (a site called oursportscentral.com), and a hit regarding Dusty Baker discussing a Bats player. Page 6 has five local paper hits, two opponent local paper hits, an oursportscentral hit, a hit from the Cleveland Plain Dealer about Indians affiliate scores (which could arguably be included in "opponent local paper hits"), and one hit for a story about the Louisville Slugger museum. Now up to 60 sources without a single one that allows the subject to meet WP:NEVENT. -Dewelar (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such is the case with any reliable source when searching for news. There is likely more extensive coverage in The Sporting News' digital archives. The time you spent sleuthing threw those pages could've been spent expanding an article, but instead are spent being determined to destroy. I'm done with this game. I say WP:GNG, you say WP:NEVENT, yadda yadda, it'll all come down to whether or not the closing admin is biased against sports articles. I don't have time for this nonsense anymore. I've taken this lost cause off my watchlist. The article is not a lost cause, but reasoning with the delete votes are. I have articles to edit. Articles that will probably be deleted 18 months from now, simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. What joy. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now that's some serious hypocrisy. I know Vodello is no longer watching, but obviously I was damned if I didn't do the work, and once I did do some work, I was similarly damned for wasting my time. *shakes head* -Dewelar (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was creating a final response, but this parting behind the back cheap shot appeared in the edit conflict. 12 hours to create, 1 click to destroy. In your case, you expanded it to 30 minutes. Bravo? Oh well. You get the last comment to 'win' the argument. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was considering not saying anything because you said you weren't watching, which is why I pointed it out. I'm now much more at ease having called you a hypocrite to your "face". -Dewelar (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all the suggestions that this is an "I don't like it" thing orchestrated by "deletionists", the only policy guidelines that I'm aware of are in WP:EVENT ("Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect") and in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons, which is a specific guideline that makes the distinction between whether a team is or isn't in a "top" professional league. ("Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements."). The Louisville Bats are not and have never been in a major league, so the question is whether someone can demonstrate that there was something particularly notable about a season of a minor league baseball club. Lots of events that are WP:NEWS would meet the general notability guidelines, including the daily weather report, but most of them are insignificant. If someone can show significance here, I'm all for it, but I've not seen it yet. Mandsford 16:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions that the people who oppose you are ignorant ("I don't know it"), lazy ("I don't wanna do work"), or shallow ("I don't like it") are not effective arguments. Everyone here has a view about what Wikipedia ought to be, in what direction it should be going, and about what's significant. I expect that the topic of sports season articles will come up again and again, and many of the participants here will meet again. Mandsford 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This dog & pony show has happened many times in the past, most resulting in keep. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Common arguments encountered-seasons was created as an easy how-to guide to protecting college season articles from deletion. It doesn't apply here necessarily, but many of the deletion arguments posted here seem to be eerily similar to the examples listed at the season notability section. Oh well. Good luck in obliterating this article. Just don't cite this as your example when you try to delete every college football and season article ever made later on. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 02:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good guide. The very first section of it makes the very point I'm trying to make: "As long as the sourcing is not solely from the team website, and local routine articles on regular season games". Right now, for this particular individual season, and really for every such season I've seen go through the AfD process thus far, that's been all there was. As the guide itself implies, more is needed. If it's out there, go find it. WP:IDONTWANNADOTHEWORK really seems to apply more to your side of this debate than mine from an overall perspective.
Obviously I can't speak for Mandsford, but as I've said before I have no objections to minor league articles per se. If I did, I wouldn't have started the discussion at WT:NSPORTS to try and come up with a new guideline for their notability. I do believe that it is difficult for an individual season of an affiliated team to achieve notability in its own right (i.e., beyond the organization with which it's affiliated and the notability of the team as an entity) for the simple reason that, while minor league baseball as a whole is popular and important, individual teams are not truly important beyond the city in which they play. It was not always thus, but in the era of the affiliated minors it has become so. I mourn the loss, but I do not deny the loss. -Dewelar (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me speak directly to the comments in favor of keeping. There are four such comments. One accuses the deletion side of making nothing more than an IDONTLIKEIT argument (which is clearly not true—specific arguments are laid out) and says nothing more. Another talks about how some people read these articles on another web site. Neither of these two arguments are remotely germane and they should be ignored. The other two comments, from Agent Vodello and Ravenswing, invoke the GNG. Neither explain how this article specifically passes the GNG. Ravenswing acknowledges there are not sufficient sources now, but claims "I don't doubt that sourcing exists." Similarly Agent Vodello "I think the Louisville Bats have plenty enough reliable sources throughout their season." Neither provide any such sources, and Agent Vodello admits that no one has ever been interested in creating this kind of article, and the person who did abandoned it. So the closest we have to a valid keep argument is "trust me, there are sources on this" without actually providing them. That doesn't cut it as a keep argument. Even were such sources to exist, none of those in favor of keeping are dealing with the issue of whether or not such sourcing would go beyond WP:ROUTINE, a guideline which tells us that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Has anyone even suggested there is anything beyond routine coverage? No. Thus we clearly do not have a basis for an article. The argument for deletion is rooted firmly in WP:ROUTINE and a lack of reference to minor league seasons in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_seasons. I don't see any valid argument articulated by those in favor of keeping—vague references to the GNG and complaints about deletionists are irrelevant, as are the number of people who have chimed in on the keep side without, I think, providing a real rationale. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You're just being pointy, Bigtimepeace. Are you seriously giving a put-up-or-shut-up challenge? Splendid. WP:ROUTINE specifically cites "sports scores" and "sports matches" as falling under its aegis, but of course does not (and could not) exempt feature articles concerning the subject. This [8] from Business First about a member of the Bats' front office. This [9] from the Floyd County Times about the extension of the affiliation with the Cincinnati Reds. This [10] from Our Sports Central about the team's radio contract. This [11] from the Courier-Journal concerning the team winning the division. This [12] from the Courier-Journal and this [13] from the Cincinnati Enquirer about the team's prospects for the upcoming season. This [14] about the team's ace pitcher. This [15] about their playoff play. This [16] about their top performers going into the all-star break. This [17] about their second-half prospects. This [18] about renovations to their field. This [19] and this [20] about their manager's dissatisfaction with the team's defense. This [21] about the shared experiences of some of its players in the College World Series. This [22] about the team seeking a liquor license for its in-facility restaurant. You want me to come up with a few dozen more - all concerning the 2009 season, by the bye, and none being a game recap or match result? - or would you prefer to let that argument drop?  Ravenswing  14:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of those are from the local papers, which does not contribute anything toward broader notability. Of the ones that aren't, two are about the team and its connection to the MLB Reds (thus failing to establish notability independent of the parent club) and the other is from a site specifically about minor league teams (Our Sports Central). They're exactly the same links I checked above in my response to Vodello, and they're no more pertinent now than they were yesterday. One of them -- the Cincinnati Enquirer article -- doesn't even lead to the article it says it does. -Dewelar (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... first off, there is nothing in the GNG debarring local and regional newspapers from establishing notability. Secondly, there is nothing in the GNG debarring well-regarded, reliable sources which focus on the subject's field ... would you suggest, for instance, that the New England Journal of Medicine is not an independent source about medical issues because it's a medicine-based publication? Your suggestion that articles that "[fail] to establish notability independent of the parent club" fall by the wayside for that reason is positively baroque; sources need to be independent of the subject, and that's it. A case could be made that the Cincinnati Reds' website (for example) is not an independent source when discussing an affiliate, but since no one has cited the Reds' website, that point is moot. As far as your WP:DIVERSE claim goes, that's a recommendation, not a black-letter requirement, and since all the GNG requires are "multiple" sources, the Cinncinnati Enquirer and oursportscentral.com sure count. Shall we make this slightly more absurd by poring over national-distribution newspapers which cover the minor leagues such as the Sporting News or Baseball America or can we just agree that a blizzard of sources where only two are necessary to satisfy the requirements of GNG will suffice?  Ravenswing  17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in only local sources actually are not enough to establish notability without other non-local sources to support it. Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." The Cincinnati Enquirer article has two problems. First, clicking on the link brings me to an article about the Louisville Slugger museum, so I can't see the context of the article. From the teaser, however, the season is discussed not in its own right, but in the context of its connection to the Cincinnati Reds. There's no such thing as notability by association -- a thing must be notable in and of itself. The "Our Sports Central" site is probably the closest thing you've got to establishing notability, but as of now all you've brought from them is a season preview. Does a season preview go beyond routine coverage? I would argue that it doesn't. That could also be considered a problem with the Enquirer article, if I could actually see it. -Dewelar (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would note Our Sports Central is not really a reliable source for anything because all they do is reprint news releases from the teams/leagues themselves. So its primary information. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dewelar, you're still missing the point. An article from a reliable source which discusses a subject in significant detail qualifies as a valid source under the GNG for that reason alone. Period. An article about an athlete isn't debarred because the athlete belongs to a team, and the article discusses the athlete only in terms of his play with the team. An article about Boston's relations with state government isn't debarred because Boston happens to be a part of that state. And so on. You're badly misreading WP:NOTINHERITED, which holds that absent any sources about a subject, the subject isn't notable nonetheless because of a more famous association; it is obviously not the case that anyone is claiming that this team ought to be notable only because of its more famous affiliate. As far as WP:ROUTINE goes, it only explicitly debars match recaps and trivial reporting of scores, which I've avoided. A season preview happens only once a year, is not remotely routine, and neither involves match recaps nor reporting of scores.  Ravenswing  19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be conflating my arguments. The argument about associational notability applied only to the Enquirer article. The article wasn't about the players as members of the Bats, the article was about the players as Reds minor leaguers and the team as a Reds affiliate. That's why it doesn't qualify, in my opinion. Also, thanks to Djsasso for pointing out that Our Sports Central is a primary source, eliminating its reliability. My argument regarding the lack of breadth of coverage still stands. To take a point from below, it's not going to get any easier to find sources to confer notability to this article in the future, so if it can't be brought to standards now the likelihood that it will be in the future is, at the risk of repeating myself, vanishingly slim. -Dewelar (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
afaik there is no consensus to apply WP:ROUTINE to season articles at this time. Ravenswing has already shown that WP:ROUTINE is inappropriate to use here, yet it is continued to be pointed to as the main, infallible reason to delete. Hopefully at least the closing admin knows this. Also, the statistics are a valuable part of the article, but not the finished product. The article needs month by month summaries of the games played, and even though this is not entered yet, we have no deadline on Wikipedia. I don't agree with any delete rationale that sites WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOTSTATS.ec Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, not only does the danger of WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTSTATS color major league season recaps as well - articles for which no one is proposing deletion - it's always poor practice to delete articles merely because of a risk that they will prove substandard.  Ravenswing  19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite incorrect that WP:ROUTINE also, as a rule, impinges on major league sports season recaps. For any major league sporting club one will find not only routine "here was the score, here's what happened" coverage from local papers, but a variety of other sources as well. For one thing AP covers most or maybe all major league sports teams (do they cover the Louisville Bats, or any minor league club, in any detail?). Sports opinion columnists—who are legion—discuss essentially every team in their (major) league in the course of a season. Local sports reporters from other cities/states do original reporting on their rivals (for example a Chicago reporter recently got an apparent scoop about the Minnesota Vikings and their difficult 2010 season). Nationally oriented online and print publications and television and radio broadcasts dedicate enormous time and space to covering the major stories behind every single professional sport team (I'm staying U.S. focused here so I'm speaking of baseball, football, and basketball...maybe hockey but I genuinely do not know). Add this all together and you do not have "routine coverage," you have obsessive coverage from numerous media outlets at the national and at multiple local levels. To say that this falls under WP:ROUTINE strikes me as an incorrect reading of the guideline, which in fact would seem to refer to the standard sort of stories that any local paper will churn out about any local sports team at any level. I'm still not seeing more than that on the Louisville Bats. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let them attend and follow the teams. Wikipedia has articles on the teams. It has an article on the rosters. What Wikipedia doesn't need is every stat for every game ever played in all minor leagues, per WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well that team season articles are not, as a matter of course, mere collections of every stat for every game played.  Ravenswing  16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire page is a mass of numbers. It's 100% statistics. (I mean this in the broader sense of what a statistic is.} Abductive (reasoning) 16:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, there are only four people urging that this article be kept, and I think that it's out of concern that a deletion will set a precedent of some sort. I doubt that it will-- each article is still to be judged on its own merits, and there are some teams who might have a particularly notable year. The idea that all teams are "entitled" to their own season article, however, would be a departure from the notability guidelines for sports seasons. If one were to remove the listing of results of each game played, per WP:STAT, what's left that can't be covered in 2009 International League season? The practice of tracking the daily goings on of an American League or National League team has been okayed, WP:STAT and WP:ROUTINE notwithstanding, because of a consensus that MLB seasons are notable. In the same vein, WP:ATHLETE gives a specific notability guideline to all MLB players, but that doesn't extend to all minor league players, regardless of how much routine coverage they receive. Regarding those of us who have urged a delete, it's not a matter of "I don't like the Louisville Bats"; it's more of a matter of "I don't like to see inherent notability expanded beyond major league teams". Mandsford 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Louisville_Bats_season
No tags for this post.