Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Louisiana Pipeliners

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. Clearly no consensus for deletion here. There is some support for a redirect (but no consensus for that either), that can be discussed outside of the deletion process if anyone wants to advance that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Louisiana Pipeliners

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; perhaps redirect to Continental Baseball League Go Phightins! 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Continental Baseball League. Per WP:ORG, no team is inherently notable, and I'm not finding non-trivial RS about this team. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional baseball teams are notable, even ones in the independent leagues. The players and personnel often arent but the teams themselves are. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spanneraol. Is there a guideline relating to teams' notability? The only ones of which I am aware are WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:SPORTS/N, and per both of them, so far as I know, this organization fails. Go Phightins! 23:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teams arent included in those guidelines, which reflect individuals only. It's my own personal preference. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully professional baseball team. Alex (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there a policy that supports any professional baseball team being notable? I am not aware of one ... Go Phightins! 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says it was a fully professional team? I haven't been able to source much information about the team. Andrew³²⁷ 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "fully professional." The Continental Baseball League was a professional baseball league and all players of all teams were paid.Spanneraol (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I think a key is that "fully professional" is not part of any guideline, so although we can nitpick at what the term means, it is irrelevant, as it is not part of any policy-based argument. Go Phightins! 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)\[reply]

Oh, policy-based arguments are no fun. Spanneraol (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you move beyond policy, you're left with an unsourced article about a group of guys who allegedly drove around the south for a few months losing the vast majority of their games. If you turn back to policy, you see the article utterly failing to meet GNG. Andrew³²⁷ 06:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Continental Baseball League. The League's article could use additional attention and does not have many hits in reliable sources. The Pipeliners don't have anywhere near enough coverage to warrant their own article. Andrew³²⁷ 03:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:FOOTYN has notability criteria for soccer clubs. They are not directly comparable to US Baseball clubs but seem good enough to keep this article, barely. filceolaire (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what that standard says about team notability: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." The Pipeliners certainly never played at the national level, meaning they should be considered under general notability criteria. I don't believe they meet WP:N. Andrew³²⁷ 06:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 14:57, 31 May 2014 (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.