Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owensboro Oilers


 * 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Owensboro Oilers

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

Non notable College-level team Spanneraol (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can't find notability for the current incarnation, but a google news search shows a number of articles about the former incarnations in the NY Times and Chicago Tribune. Unfortunately, the articles are behind paywalls, so a trip to the library for dead tree sources is needed.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but recenter around the 1937-1955 team, which was a Class D minor league affiliate of the Indians, Braves, Red Sox, and Yankees. The current version is not independently notable, but maybe worth a one-line mention in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Class D teams are notable, but refocus article as suggested by User:Hit bull, win steak.  young  american  (wtf?) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is no reason to delete this article on a former minor league baseball team.  This minor league team played for about 20 years and groomed multiple major league players. (I am surprised that Chuck Tanner and Tony Kubek are not noted in the article as they played for the Oilers.  Their time with the Oilers should probably be added to the article as it is of interest both regarding this team and to baseball historians and statisticians in general.)  Also, Owensboro's ballpark was an impressive minor league park in its day, especially for a D league team.  At any rate, an American minor league baseball team is notable enough to remain.  There are many, many articles on them already, and they are notable and of interest.  I agree with others above that the article should feature the minor league team more than the current incarnation but I don't know that information on the current incarnation needs to be erased.LanternLight (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:49, 8 April 2009 (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.