Deletion of 2009 Louisville Bats season

Comment: Minor league seasons are not inheirently notable and run the very strong risk of running afoul of  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: 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&mdash;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 , 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  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&mdash;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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: 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 () or the daily 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:STAT||WP:NEWS)

Comment: It simply is an  nomination. Agreed with Ravenswing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

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  ("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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NEWS)

Comment: The deletionists are claiming this isn't a case of , but the more they explain, the more it sounds like that they want to delete the article simply because . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IDONTWANNADOTHEWORK||WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL)