Global World Series: Reasons for deleting are the same as they were back then. .  This event never happened and all sources are minor speculative blurbs from one press conference.   It's been 10 years. .  nothing has changed.  Spanneraol ( talk ) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions .  Spanneraol ( talk ) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I took an initial dim view of the AfD because there were six or seven sources but nom is correct none of them are WP:SUSTAINED , they are all from 7 or 8 January 2010 with one exception from March 2010 making this essentially WP:NOTNEWS .  SportingFlyer T · C 18:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and SportingFlyer - Skipple ☎ 18:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not have adequate and lasting coverage to warrant notability of a speculative event.  X ( talk ) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  An event that never happened might be notable but this one never went beyond some meetings and a press conference.  Fails WP:NOTNEWS , WP:SIGCOV .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Proposed tournament that was de facto superseded by the World Baseball Classic deciding to add more teams in rather than depend on limited clubs playing off-contract; I could see some merging of content from here into that article, but not very much.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Why was this brought back?  if this idea re-emerges or if there are any concrete plans (there isn't), then we can bring it back, not now.  Kazuha1029 ( talk ) 01:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Not Delete This page should not be deleted because to have a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series is important for several reasons:  1. Transparency and Accessibility: Wikipedia articles provide transparent and accessible information to a wide audience.  By documenting the Global World Series, the article ensures that details about the proposed tournament, its origins, and its eventual outcome are available to anyone with internet access.  2. Preservation of Knowledge: Wikipedia articles contribute to the preservation of knowledge by capturing key events and developments for future generations.  The Global World Series article helps ensure that the story of this proposed tournament is not forgotten, providing insights into the aspirations, challenges, and decisions that shaped its trajectory.  3. Promotion of Awareness and Discussion: By documenting the Global World Series, the Wikipedia article promotes awareness and discussion about international baseball competitions and the efforts to expand the sport's global reach.  It encourages dialogue among fans, players, administrators, and stakeholders about the potential benefits and challenges of such tournaments.  Overall, having a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series enriches the collective understanding of baseball history and its global evolution, fostering greater appreciation and engagement with the sport across diverse audiences.  --Rrp13121989 01:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) I would bet my entire bank account this comment is a copy / paste from ChatGPT.  I understand you may have put a lot of work into the article and feel passionately about the topic, but do you have any policy based rationale for keeping the article?  As written, the article fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOTNEWS .  - Skipple ☎ 05:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So far I haven't heard any counterarguments as to why it should be deleted.  There are many article in Wikipedia about porposed tournaments or ideas.  Rrp13121989 ( talk ) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of arguments for deletion above yours.  The article doesnt have any sources that provide evidence of lasting notability.  Spanneraol ( talk ) 14:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skipple , I second this.  Password (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : sure there's some sourcing, but it was just all talk and not WP:SUSTAINED .  Password (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Admin note - I declined the speedy deletion because this article is not even remotely similar to the one that was deleted a decade ago.  This is a new article on the same topic, not a recreation.  I don't see how that would sway the discussion at this point, but I think it's important to have that context.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete