Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Lugo (2nd nomination)

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 delete. v/r - T P 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Lugo

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

Minor league baseball free agent... unlikely to make it to majors, no independent claims to notability Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While WP:BASEBALL/N does state that a player is "presumed notable" if he/ she plays on a team at the top national level of any country, this is only a rule of thumb, not a policy: a presumption of notability suggests that relevant citations could be found if a person were to thoroughly dig for them... If, however, upon conducting such a dig (as it appears others have now done) with no actual evidence of notability to be found (which it appears is the case), an argument to keep the article solely on a presumption of notability seems to have failed the test of an actual investigation/ examination of notability and therefore the article does not warrant inclusion. KDS4444^Talk 14:06, 12 November 2013 (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.