Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Le Batard

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Le Batard

[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)

This article was originally created in 2009 and deleted in July 2022 as a WP:G11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=David+Le+Batard). The article was recreated with essentially the same content in December 2022 by a user who is apparently a sock of a banned user. I personally would not delete this as G11 since the original 2009 article was created by a long-standing editor and does not appear to be meant to be an advertisement, though I can also understand why others would think that way. I do agree the subject's notability is questionable. My main concern now is that the commit history is lost so contributions over the years are not recorded. If this article should stay we should restore the edit history from 2009-2022. Taking this to AfD for a decision. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like sufficient coverage in Florida newspapers. Jahaza (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, though I would like to see at least one instance of non-local coverage. BD2412 T 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS is RS whether local national or international. The person appears to be notable. Bruxton (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent references and restore the edit history from 2009-2022Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2022 (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.