Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wassertorplatz

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wassertorplatz (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)

Fails GNG for not having SIGCOV from an Independent, reliable source for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the area is clearly referenced in a number of scholarly publications and books, I'm not sure why verification is even an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the Kreuzberger Chronik article is independent and meets GNG with significant coverage of the neighbourhood. Though, I think it would be better to have a more reliable reference- if there are in fact a number of scholar publications and books as others have commented. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is tagged appropriately but does not need to be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (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.