Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Martin (baseball)

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. Tone 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Martin (baseball)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable baseball player. Clearly does not pass WP:NBASE. I think this is the most significant coverage and so I would argue for reasons I lay out in detail in this essay that he does not pass GNG. Owing to being a minor league free agent, and if signed likely an organizational depth guy, there's no good redirect target. If he were to get a major league appearance I think this nomination has about as much text as the article and so he could easily be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.Yankees10 02:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This probably would've been a successful WP:PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: My thinking was that Lugubrious DBB had just restored this from a redirect instead of RfD or restoring and PROD'ing and so I took that to mean it would not be uncontroversial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with an abundance of caution. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2018 (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.