Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice (3rd 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matmice

[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)

This was not a notable website. Only local reliable sources - Sydney Morning Herald. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Remember the Milk. Meticulo (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the article shows reliable sources covered the subject years ago. Notability is not temporary. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have been covered by reliable sources. And the Sydney Morning Herald is not "local" coverage, it's a national masthead in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMH isnt a national masthead its a NSW paper, its part a group of newspapers that share content. Gnangarra 15:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The SMH is about the closest thing to a masthead you can get. It's a paper with national recognition even if not published nation-wide. My point is that it's not "local" news. Deus et lex (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is also this:[1] article in The Age. This website passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, The SMH(NSW), The Age(Victoria), Financial Review, Brisbane Times(QLD), WAToday(WA) are all part of the same group Nine Entertainment Co. with content published under all mastheads, but written by the same person. Gnan garra 15:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, considering the articles are completely different and were published six months apart from each other. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides enough sources to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Also an article in The Guardian ([2]). That's definitely not local coverage. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:59, 16 June 2020 (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.