Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Taihang Glasswalk

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 snow keep. Has now been edited within the last year... Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Taihang Glasswalk[edit]

[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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The furret lover (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Ghost River 03:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.