Deletion of Henry Oxley

Comment: Article as it currently stands clearly meets . Ans as you know also meets /N
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WPBB)

Comment: This is the problem; everyone is saying basically the same thing - there are sources, we just need to find them. If that is the case, then why haven't they come to light after 5 years? There are very few other articles that we keep in the hope that new sources will come to light; instead, the standard elsewhere is, delete, with no prejudice to recreation. I think at this point, the onus should be on those defending this article to find *real* sources. Perhaps the guideline should be changed to say, if an article is challenged, you have X months to demonstrate significant coverage; if it can't be found, the article is deleted, and can be userfied/etc with no prejudice to recreation - but keeping thousands of stubs out there in the hope that someone will do the research and bring new facts to light is silly. This article for example - there are now lots of sources in this article, but NO significant coverage - just census records, grave sites, and a '''mention''' in 2 books. That does not make : "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Also per @Spanneraol's comment above, I must disagree; there are people who are researching their minor league teams as well, or their high school teams, or any number of other things, but just because someone is looking for it doesn't mean wikipedia should have it. It would be great if someone just created sportsopedia, that would accept articles on any sport, any sport player, any coach, any game - then all of the sports stuff could go there and we wouldn't have to have these debates here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Are you sure Moose McCormick does not meet ? Is anyone sure that Oxley is well-covered from many diversive reliable sources independent of the subject? Anyway, baseball players are not well-covered nowadays because of recentism, such as Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and Barack Obama. While Obama is a current president, Oxley happens to be a baseball player from either 19th or 20th century. GNG is not very kind to older subjects nowadays, and, per WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack, if this subject meets GNG and fails Baseball notability, or if this subject meets Baseball notability and fails GNG, this person may be notable in either way. Even inclusion of this article is a good treat for baseball enthusiasts and a nice step to educate history of unknown
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per established onsensus|consensus about what constitutes notability at WP:Baseball and WP:Nsports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: as per all MLB players. Subject obviously meets both  and /N. Applause for Cbl62 for his work to improve the article, though it would have deserved to have been kept even in the absence of such. -Special:Contributions/208.81.148.195|208.81.148.195
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WPBB)