| Revision as of 19:56, 30 October 2021 editJumpytoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,334 edits →East Taihang Glasswalk: kTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:00, 30 October 2021 edit undoGorden 2211 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,136 edits keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| * '''Keep'''. GhostRiver has shown international attention for this bridge in secondary reliable sources, making it easily pass ]. - ] (]) 11:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | * '''Keep'''. GhostRiver has shown international attention for this bridge in secondary reliable sources, making it easily pass ]. - ] (]) 11:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Per GhostRiver, the Mashable and Straits Times sources in particular are enough to meet ], and this is not even considering the Chinese coverage that likely exists. Lack of editing does not mean lack of notability, especially when the editors in that region don't speak English and have to use VPN to edit Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Per GhostRiver, the Mashable and Straits Times sources in particular are enough to meet ], and this is not even considering the Chinese coverage that likely exists. Lack of editing does not mean lack of notability, especially when the editors in that region don't speak English and have to use VPN to edit Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' the sources added to the article show that it satisfies GNG, and it also has wide range of coverage , by date. Previously, the article was just in poor state, but not failing criteria.] (]) 23:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:00, 30 October 2021
East Taihang Glasswalk
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- East Taihang Glasswalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hasn't been edited in a year and requires more information to meet wikipedia's general notability guideline The furret lover (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The furret lover (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly passes a WP:BEFORE check, with coverage in Atlas Obscura, Archinect, Mashable, Architizer, Lonely Planet, The Guardian, and The Straits Times, and that's just on the first page of Google. WP:NEGLECT and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT are not reasons to delete. — GhostRiver 03:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- keep per GhostRiver. I did a search earlier and came up with some of the same sources and many more in Chinese. I am sure I recall some of the coverage of it, before I was drawn to this article by deletion sorting. I.e. it may only be a fancy footbridge, but one with significant international coverage.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 05:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. GhostRiver has shown international attention for this bridge in secondary reliable sources, making it easily pass WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per GhostRiver, the Mashable and Straits Times sources in particular are enough to meet WP:GNG, and this is not even considering the Chinese coverage that likely exists. Lack of editing does not mean lack of notability, especially when the editors in that region don't speak English and have to use VPN to edit Misplaced Pages. Jumpytoo Talk 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the sources added to the article show that it satisfies GNG, and it also has wide range of coverage , by date. Previously, the article was just in poor state, but not failing criteria.Gorden 2211 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)