Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Part W
- 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Part W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The cited references for this subject appear to be either interviews or write-ups in industry-specific journals. A quick preliminary check didn't appear to unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: There are diverse, notable and independent sources, beyond industry-specific journals, that refer to the practice and demonstrate notability, for example: Financial Times, The Guardian, Architects' Journal. Disclosure: I was the reviewer when the article passed AfC review--AntientNestor (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: meets GNG. A publication being specific to an industry is not an adequate reason to discount it entirely. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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.