Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Bell (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Bell[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)

Non-notable online education service, fails WP:NPRODUCT. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to contest this deletion. But how can I do that? User:VNHRISHIKESH
@VNHRISHIKESH: Have a look at Help:My article got nominated for deletion!. Neiltonks (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AFD appears to be for a motion picture, since all the comments are based on WP:NFILM. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding a ton of sources on this, so it would appear to meet WP:GNG unless someone has concerns about any of them as WP:RS. Examples [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per LizardJr8's comment, easily passes GNG. --Gazal world (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, promotional article. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contributors here should take note of the nomination, which asserts that the subject is not notable. I disagree in this instance, but statements that support deletion on the basis that this is a "non-notable, promotional article" are unlikely to be taken seriously. For one, articles need not be notable, but they should be about a notable subject. It might sound like an academic distinction but WP:BEFORE is very clear; there are steps A, B, and C before nomination for deletion at D. The question here is whether the subject is notable, not whether or not the article does a good or bad job of presenting the subject. Because bad writing is fixable. Second, the article being promotional (in an encyclopedia that aims not to promote things) is an example of bad writing. And again, bad writing is fixable. What I don't see is any kind of argument as to why the sources outlined above don't establish notability... so unless someone wants to contribute more than flippant non-policy opinion, there hasn't been a single substantive argument for deletion yet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and Stalwart111's explanation. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others, easily enough sources to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 6 August 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.