Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lalbagh

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Withdrawn per User:Dream Focus. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while the opening is an unreferenced definition, this is also clearly a disambiguation page. (And it is not uncommon for disambig pages to contain a short definition.) In any case, at least four articles here state in their first sentence that they are sometimes known by "Lalbagh" alone: Lal Bagh/Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Lalbagh metro station, Lalbagh, Mangalore, and Lalbagh Thana (Dhaka). Even if you wanted to make one of these the primary topic (probably the botanical garden), you would still need a disambiguation page for this many entries. You can debate whether the definition should be included or not (and it looks like at least one editor already agrees with you), but deletion is not the appropriate outcome here. MarginalCost (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Obviously a legitimate disambiguation page, linking to articles that have this name. Dream Focus 02:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But this was intentionally made to be NOT a disambiguation page, the other editor intentionally removed the disambig template and formatted it in a weird way.

  You don't try to delete an article because you disagreed with another editor. You can post on the third opinion board to get someone else to come and settle the disagreement. Dream Focus 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue edit war with him, be my guest. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a dab page. The ultimate cause behind this AfD appears to be a disagreement on whether the dab page should or should not have two sentences at the top describing the meaning of the term. That's not for AfD, guys, sort it out on the talk page. Personally, I see it as perfectly acceptable for a dab page to have such a short intro. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have nothing against about intros. I am against having unreferenced text in wikipedia anywhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala: This guy intentionally turned it into article page. I see this as a disruption. I have no idea how to handle this, hence AFD. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (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.