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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terre Haute Rex

[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, particularly since it doesn't even exist yet. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the team hasn't played a game yet, it does exist. As for WP:ORG, a quick Google search finds several reliable secondary sources, ([1], [2], [3], [4]) which also show that the team "exists." Kithira (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're using local media. Quoth WP:ORG; "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.". Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the team may not be covered by the New York Times, it is indeed a legitimate team from a league dating back to 1963. You have to consider that it is a local league, and the team is new. It is notable and a part of this family of articles.24.154.29.79 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing; coverage of a non-local nature is needed. Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: If that were the case, most minor leagues would not be covered here. What's your benchmark? USA Today? Tom Danson (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just added formatting for references from Indiana State University, an established institution. Also added a national source for the ownership and first line.Kithira (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local leagues can be notable, but not necessarily the teams in them. The degree to which purely local notability is sufficient is an open question; in this case, I think it inadequate. The "national source" referred to above is merely the league's own website, whichis reliable for facts, but not as evidence of notablity. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The national source is not the leagues website. The Rex belong to the Prospect League. The aforementioned source is a third-party media outlet which covers summer collegiate leagues like the Prospect League. As seen on the site's About page, the site merely covers summer leagues and is in no way affiliated with any particular league or team. Also, when did the Prospect League become a "local league"? It has franchises in 6 states.Kithira (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prospect League. BRMo (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable league, therefore it's a notable team.Alex (talk)

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.