Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/William Street Bird

2089:." Why is this the case? If you read through the source below, you'll see that all the information is trivial and nothing there can be used in a Knowledge (XXG) article. It is superficial in coverage, reading more like a PROMO than a neutral article. Again, I do not know why you find it difficult to understand this. You're focusing on minor points that you think I got wrong rather than the bigger picture I'm painting. In addition to all this, your tone is quite condescending. You accuse me of failing to understand guidelines even though you (as I have demonstrated) do not understand this guideline. Adding to this, my experiment wasn't imaginary nonsense; noting once again that SIGCOV is determined individually per SIRS, if you can't use any part of a source in an article (since it focuses on drink prices and very minor trivialities), then it doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. These trivialities include " 2228:

criteria, you are not evaluating for notability, you are evaluating for SIGCOV to see if it is more than a trivial mention. If it isn't obvious that evaluating SIGCOV is evaluating SIGCOV, and not evaluating something else, then perhaps you should consider any one of the other 4 criteria such as the reliable sourcing criteria and imagine how weird it would be to say that evaluating a reliable source requires the source to contribute to notability before it can be considered for notability, because that is essentially the same argument you are making, and trying to require for the SIGCOV criteria. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous! If the SIGCOV criteria must follow the guidance the way you are incessantly insisting that it does, then so must the others follow the same rule. If they are not able to do that without making any sense then it follows that isn't what it means.

2546:

because two different things appear in the same page and on the same guideline does not mean that they have to be talking about the same thing. I just provided you a perfectly good example of this above with NNC. The notability guideline deals with the idea about whether a topic should have its own article or not while NNC is about the fact that article content itself is not regulated by notability guidelines. Two different things on the same page in the same guideline. Now, please stop making personal remarks about me so I can leave this discussion in peace because I already apologized for the ones that I made about you and I'm going to go back and strike them as well as the ones I made about Nythar as soon as I get the opportunity. Thanks.

3084:. The source analyses by Nythar above are thorough and accurate. NCORP is extremely straightforward and unambiguous that each source must be SIGCOV SIRS to count toward notability; editors unfamiliar with this guideline should not be !voting on NCORP AfDs. It's also very clear from the guideline that local sources do not contribute to notability either, so all the reviews from Perth must be dismissed (and anything that lists the literal address and/or phone number of the venue is certainly local). Coverage derived from pitches, like the Concrete Playground, are also not independent. That leaves us with basically nothing. 1006:. Suz Tucker serves as editorial director. The review provides 249 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years." 2413:. The issue about CORPDEPTH is a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance that really has to be talking about the overall notability of the subject. If you are attempting to mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH in ways that contradict the "parent" guidance by trying to say that the individual sources they are talking about from SIRS now have to be able to write their own articles in the way they are talking about should be done for all subjects in CORPDEPTH, then you are violating the fundamental ideas of SIGCOV that they must be more than trivial mentions, and also the principle of 2531:- usually best achieved by not saying anything more. Anyway, the reason someone might "mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH" is that these are sections of the NCORP guidance, and if you don't understand that guidance, you should not be commenting on AfD's in this area. The meta discussion, if you wish to pursue it, is better placed in an RfC somewhere on the guidance (not that I would recommend that). What matters here is that this article fails against NCORP. 910:

Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. ... Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red."

2024:

can't support an article. You could have multiple sources that each don't have enough coverage to support an article on their own merit, but do have enough coverage to support the topic, and when combined they all have enough coverage to support an article. Nothing in what you quoted says anything about coming from a single source. If it doesn't say it, then you are coming to your own conclusion.

2154:

that a single source must support the notability an article. Having significant coverage (i.e. being more than a trivial mention}, and "being notable" are two different things. Your inability to distinguish the two is becoming frustrating and tiresome. If you don't understand the extremely basic concept that what SIRS is trying to explain is that ok source 1 has enough coverage to go toward

31: 1104:

owner Kabir Ramasary, who bought the venue in 2017, says his own positive experiences at The Bird influenced his purchase. ... Aside from its bar and kitchen, The Bird hosts a range of entertainment, from live music across genres to festival events such as Soul Alphabet to drag shows. It is also famous for Monday Milk, one of the few opportunities in Perth for new bands to have the stage."

1930:

Using a single SIGCOV source, one should be able to, according to policy, produce an article that isn't horrendously brief. Meaning there is enough information that is "significant" (e.g. relatively detailed history, current owners, neutral analysis of the venue's effects on people living there, etc.) Can you prove that The Sunday Times' article contains anything but trivial coverage?

1666: 1633: 1600: 1567: 1534: 1501: 1464: 1427: 586: 549: 520: 487: 445: 416: 1346:. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues). Most of the sources you listed above are too short and others lack SIGCOV, containing only a few sentences describing the Bird. 455: 2819:

to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.)

1867:. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and 2153:

I have told you multiple times the guidance does not say exactly what you are trying to imply it does. Sure, each source must be evaluated independently, and sure each source must have more than a trivial mention (SIGCOV), but you do not seem to be grasping the fact that it still doesn't say anywhere

2080:

meet all the criteria, one of which is SIGCOV. You're forcing me to need to clarify such obvious points, that my replies here seem to be "badgering." Anyway, we've gotten past that point; SIGCOV is only determined individually here. Moving on, the problem with regards to the 8 sources is that they do

2417:

that notability doesn't govern content because if you really want to try talking about using a single source, then you don't really have any other choice but to talk about violating that since the only content you would have regarding notability is coming from just that source. It's really very hard

2243:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product,

1876:

If you examine the article, you'll find that it consists entirely of trivial information. In fact, that article contains almost no information suitable for an article, other than the fact that the venue exists. You can try that out if you're not sure: try writing a non-PROMO, non-trivial, non-brief,

1769:

per Cunard’s excellent analysis. like other recent AfD’s, this pushes the windows of ROUTINE and SIGCOV in a strongly deletionist direction. As for the comment that the Sunday Times is merely a “local Western Australian” newspaper: our notability guidelines require reliable sources, not big sources.

2965:

You took my comment out of context. It wasn't intended to be a single statement alone, but meant to make a point to the other editor about how a single source doesn't have to support an article. If you want to pick out whatever part of other peoples words might be technically incorrect, then please

2843:

I'm going to have to insist that you stop this off topic hypothetical line of query and cease the badgering of other editors with experimental theories that are not grounded in any policy. SIGCOV does not require a source to be able to support an article, and you need to stop advancing this line of

2818:

assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able

2784:

What part of this significantly describes the Bird? This is one of the most non-SIGCOV sources I have seen on Knowledge (XXG). Where's the thorough analysis/description? All I see is an advertisement with no information pertaining to the venue's history. Besides the nonexistent SIGCOV, this article

2692:

states that local coverage is insignificant coverage (meaning the subject is not notable enough for an international audience). Every source you've provided above either falls under local coverage or is simply too short to be worth counting towards SIGCOV. And like Sirfurboy said, the population of

2023:

So what? Nothing you quoted at CORPDEPTH says the coverage has to come from a single source! Only that the subject has enough coverage to write more than a stub. Just because a single source might have enough coverage to support an article doesn't mean the source can't be used or isn't SIGCOV if it

1291:

coverage, published simply for the sake of publishing something. None of these prove that the Bird is notable, or that it stands out from other venues. If you search deeply enough, you could find a source for almost any building in existence; that is the reason why this large amount of sources does

974:

The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air

3210:

You could say that about any news media source since they all advertise, and so they will always profit from anything they are reporting on no matter if there is sponsorship related to what they report about or not. Plus, we have no way to determine which things they report on are sponsor related,

1068:

The article provides 66 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s

1039:

The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop

909:

The review notes: "Is it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. ... But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The

3250:

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying there was a problem wider than the article. I was saying that your "problem" with local publications doing advertising and sponsorships is only an imagined one because it isn't unique to local publications since all publications and news media outlets do

2028:

Conflating SIGCOV with CORPDEPTH and vice versa. You have already indicated elsewhere in this conversation that your intentions are to run us through hypothetical experiments on your theories about this, and I have already asked before to please stop, so I'll ask one last time to please keep your

1910:

Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test, only Knowledge (XXG) articles do. A single source doesn't have to be able to support a whole article all by itself to be used on Knowledge (XXG), and you should give a severe tongue lashing to whomever planted

1881:

using that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails

1103:

journalism students, so it contributes less to notability. The article notes: "The William Street Bird is a small, unassuming venue, sitting in a row of stores at the mouth of Northbridge. The Bird has served as a live music venue and bar for more than a decade after being opened in 2010. Current

1929:

What on earth are you talking about? Sources don't pass notability tests; they need to be acceptable according to the GNG so that the article subject passes the GNG. This is entirely about SIGCOV. A source isn't SIGCOV if it is entirely trivial coverage. Significant coverage != trivial coverage.

793:

of IsolatedNation in Knowledge (XXG) reveals only a single instance of the use of their website as a source. That article is William Street Bird. I'm not enthusiastic about accepting poorly written, heavily opinionated, PROMO articles as reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. To add to all this,

2545:

Well, thanks a whole heck of a lot for that comment. Now you've forced me to have to justify commenting here after you just advised me that all I have to do is not reply if I don't want to be involved in the discussion. That's just great. Anyway, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that just

2227:

In other words, each source must be, secondary, independent, reliable, and be more than a trivial mention, not be notable in its own right, and each source must be evaluated to meet this standard in order to qualify as a contributing source toward notability. When you are evaluating the SIGCOV

1998:

To add to this, consider the fact that any organization or company that has at least one SIGCOV source (assuming it is both reliable and independent) may have an article. But if that "SIGCOV" source alone can only result in a single-sentence stub, then it isn't SIGCOV. I'm not making up rules;

937:

The review notes: "Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too

3285:

You could say it virtually about any local business. I'd venture to say that every restaurant larger than three tables has made sure to be known locally, be it through local press or radio or telephone directories. I never said that I require worldwide notability: I only expect notability

2085:." Why do I think this? I think this because (and I hope you'll stop belittling my position), if an article like the one I listed below cannot have meaningful, useful information derived from it which can be used in a Knowledge (XXG) article, then it does not qualify as " 2373:

Jeez. I can't even get out of a debate because you want to argue the point so bad you're even willing to respond to a struckout comment. Thank heaven I at least got a little nap in. Nobody is trying to redefine SIGCOV. It is clearly defined where SIRS links to it in the

2303:

I only see one small sentence in the front saying anything about a source, and it has nothing to do with contributing to notability as you suggested. It is also talking about the depth of coverage on a subject by a source, and saying it must be considered, as it should.

2687:

do not "stand out" from other similar things. You claim these sources demonstrate SIGCOV, and I disagree because the sources don't prove that this venue is more notable than any other non-notable venue. SIGCOV is not as simple as "a two-hundred-word review exists."

1740:'s analysis, but I note that "The Sunday Times" here, first source, is a Western Australia local paper and this appears to be a brief Sunday supplement write up. The others also appear to be in a similar vein don't they? This does not meet significant coverage per 2117:" part of SIRS. The rest of the sources also fail this point (literally try checking them out yourself). Before you decide to respond, please rethink your positions and comments carefully, because even I am not entirely sure I understand what you're arguing for. 2947:. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per 2418:

to say you aren't using notability to govern content if you are just using the one source for notability. To make matters worse, you would (confusingly) be claiming the same guidance for both, but really violating it in two or more different areas of it.

2358:

Do you also believe the other key criteria for a SIGCOV SIRS are distributive just because the sections on "independent sources", "reliable sources", and "secondary sources" use "sources" instead of (awkwardly) speaking in the singular the whole time?

3197:. Virtually ALL local publications about local businesses are SPONSORED ("infomercials") – no current business model for newspapers allows for free advertisements. Therefore, I don't believe that any local "review" was independent from the subject. — 2639:. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in 1831:

How in the hell is it "by no means" significant coverage in the source you just linked to? It isn't just a trivial mention. 100% of the coverage in that source is about the topic. How don't you figure that is significant and more than a mere mention?

2668:

And yours was a 217 word comment! Western Australia has a population of 2.8 million with the vast majority (2.1 million) living in Perth. The review is from the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section. This is routine coverage of a local business.

3126:. JoelleJay said what I would have, just more concisely. I'm even sympathetic to XOR's view that local newspapers "should" count for something. But there's really nothing here but promotion and brief mentions. Cunard's additional links don't help: 966:

The website's independent editorial policy notes: "We do not seek or accept payment from the cafes, restaurants, bars and shops listed in the Directory – inclusion is at our discretion. Venue profiles are written by independent freelancers paid by

2693:

Western Australia mostly resides in Perth (79% I believe), so that newspaper you cited can be considered to be local coverage. SIGCOV sources would examine the Bird more thoroughly, and would prove the Bird is notable beyond its local scene.

1215:"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited." 2513:

I know you're gonna respond here cause you are so much like me you just can't help it, but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation so I'm gonna let you have the last word so just please don't ask me any questions okay? Thanks.

2763:

But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in

348:

I am not opposed to the idea that this venue arguably does not meet GNG guidelines (personally I view SIGCOV to have been met here, but I can see how it might be arguable either way); but this AfD nomination should come from another user

2774:

Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town

938:

seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard."

3251:

this. If what you were saying was true, then we couldn't use any publication or news media service as independent no matter if it were local or not. If your real argument was the fact that this article wasn't notable enough to have

1221:"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning." 2443:

is considered non-trivial for companies and therefore contributory towards notability. You cannot meet GNG and fail NCORP unless you apply an interpretation of SIGCOV or independence that is at odds with the guidance at

1133:

The article notes that the new live music bar in Northbridge called the Bridge was owned by The William Street Bird owner Mike O'Hanlon. The article does not contribute much to notability, so I am including it in this

231: 3377:

If you believe that media companies ("reliable", "unreliable", doesn't matter) are gladly paying their staff to write about random restaurants for nothing in return, you fail to understand how media business works. —

2271::Regurgitating what has already been said is not helpful in the least. I see nowhere whatsoever where it says that is a requirement for each source. My read on it is that the requirement is for depth of coverage on 3573:

SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for

1816:

The point about the paper being local to WA, and the article being a Sunday supplement article is that this is not, therefore, significant coverage of a notable business but routine coverage of a local one.

2345:

guidance for determining whether any given source is sufficiently significant to contribute to org notability, and would directly contradict all the other places where SIGCOV is described in relation to a

331: 2451:

from SIRS, it comes directly after SIRS under the same Primary criteria section following an extremely straightforward format: SIRS explains how to apply ORGCRIT by stating the four SIRS criteria, then

2651:

only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.

2244:

company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a

574: 3468: 1342:

Newspapers and magazines usually have a set minimum number of articles they must publish in a given period of time. If a subject relies entirely on those types of articles, the subject does not

1168:

To pitch events, venues or news ideas, please send an email containing all relevant details and images to the editorial inbox in your city: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland and Wellington.

2766:

A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($ 9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.

2968:

And please, drop the non-policy based argument that an article can't be written with that source. It isn't required to, and believe it or not, people can actually really get in trouble for

2287:

goes beyond mentions (plural) and announcements (plural) (That means more than one announcement in case you didn't catch that), to make it (obviousy) possible to write more than a stub.

2777:

The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.

1654: 1110: 3263:, then the argument isn't valid since there is no requirement for any article to have worlwide or even national coverage like OTHERSTUFF does. The tired old argument that if something 886: 3271:

stupid. There is all kinds of stuff only small groups of experts know or care about that is notable, and the only place you can find "coverage" for it is in a handful of journals...

1227:

Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground:

2916:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

1789: 1415: 3211:

and which ones are not unless they tell us directly this report was brought to you by so and so, and most reputable reporting agencies (even local ones) will do this in some form.

1390: 379: 1209:"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information." 3575: 2731: 2717: 2648: 2640: 2626: 2612: 2608: 1883: 1325: 1145: 225: 3643: 301: 1636:

Again, ROUTINE coverage of the venue, this time from Western Independent, a newspaper run by students at Curtin University, published for the sake of publishing something.

3225:

Agree, the problem is much wider than this particular article. However, truly notable businesses will also have significant in-depth coverage, positive or negative (e.g.,

3623: 1588: 1045: 188: 2772:

The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($ 17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($ 20).

3472: 575:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190815124831/https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/community-radio-station-rtrfm-921s-radiothon-2019-is-set-to-kick-off-tomorrow-ng-b881292654z

2209:

as I did, and not pulling ideas from thin blue air or taking guidance and misconstruing as they have been. If they were able, then I would gladly shut the fuck up.

2487:

coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage

297: 293: 1555: 1016: 1218:"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece." 508: 3366:

You misunderstood me. It's not about advertisements, which indeed are usually marked as such. It's about that particular service that media provide for money:

120: 3118: 2141:

My competency with understanding of relevant guidelines is just fine since I can quote policy that says exactly verbatim to back up my understanding of it at

1452: 916: 3233:) or be notable in other ways (e.g. company size, innovation, stock listings, etc.). A restaurant that is mentioned only in the local media and only because 2456:

expands on each of those requirements with details and examples. The "S" in SIRS is expanded upon starting with the CORPDEPTH section and ending with ILLCON.

3174:

and add a brief 1-2 sentence description in the "Culture" section of the proposed redirect target. Not independently notable but a reasonable search term.

40: 2761:

The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.

2759:

Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.

1430:

Not only is it short in length and poorly written, it also refers to the prices of different drinks offered at the venue. Doesn't try to prove the subject

135: 1166:

Not sure we can count Concrete Playground as having editorial oversight just because they list an "editorial director". Their "Editorial inquiries" says

1655:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-bird-fights-early-closing-time-20100223-oz5h.html

1141: 875: 289: 1069:

backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us."

1621: 1416:

https://archive.ph/2023.05.22-093230/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1500B6A266EA4BA8&f=basic

1075: 161: 156: 2205:, and I'm not pulling them out of my ass. I would like to see the other editor show me something that they can quote verbatim from some guidance 1687:

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using

607:

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using

896: 2147:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability...

1224:"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party." 165: 1120: 2323:

source; why would the succeeding sentences that go on to describe what "depth" means now switch to being about the aggregate coverage across

404: 829: 330:: This is a pointy nomination and I am being harassed by the nominator, an editor that has recently been trawling through my contributions: 2722: 2617: 2338:

of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary.

1775: 1489: 943: 891: 148: 789:

At least several of the IsolatedNation references you provided are written as first-person narratives and are heavily opinionated. Also,

1992:

Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and

2973: 2789:, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. 1589:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101836/https://themusic.com.au/news/the-best-live-music-venues-wa-has-to-offer/XvtxcHNydXQ/30-10-15

2283:. Only after it mentions this does it continue on to describe what deep or significant coverage is, and finally ending by saying that 115: 108: 17: 3691: 3157: 775:

IsolatedNation is a well-established modern perth culture magazine and is a reliable source. Your claim to the contrary is bizzare.

3101:

I would personally be lenient about local sources if I were drafting a guideline, but I'm not the one who wrote the guideline, and

1206:"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018)," 246: 3486: 1522: 1321: 981: 825: 475: 213: 3499: 1556:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522101327/https://themusic.com.au/news/wam-awards-2016-most-popular-venue/KTk6PTw_PiE/12-10-16

1055: 2779:

THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2

2768:

The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $ 8 pint.

2341:

and then immediately redefine "significant coverage" as a cumulative product achieved through multiple sources? That would be

509:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221128220345/https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/tame-impala-members-form-new-band-for-fundraising-gig/

3171: 1877:

non-SYNTH article using that source alone. It's not possible. Therefore, it isn't possible to write an article longer than a

1236: 1193: 129: 125: 1453:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093514/https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/the-bird-ng-79c6b562089e93b2e72539b1485ffd66

3374:

media article whose obvious role is to generate buzz about a commercial enterprise is, with absolute certainty, sponsored.

2491:

provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and

1196:), you have raised a good point about a flaw in my reasoning, so I did some more research on Concrete Playground. I found 315: 277: 3608: 3547: 3042:

Maybe you should retract the per Nythar bit since they were talking about a single source. That's why I got confused...

2834: 2804: 2708: 2132: 2014: 1945: 1901: 1807: 1723: 1691: 1669:

Story by a regional newspaper in Australia about the venue fighting "early closing time" that is 100% ROUTINE coverage.

1361: 1307: 809: 766: 670: 643: 611: 339: 3673: 3350:

Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article.

2770:

The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.

1708:– above is a review of the sources you've provided. The sources that come off as ROUTINE are listed as lacking SIGCOV. 1026: 69: 46: 2403:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

192: 437: 207: 2464:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject

2384:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of

1148:, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". 924: 3655: 3635: 3612: 3588: 3551: 3503: 3476: 3451: 3433: 3419: 3386: 3361: 3335: 3280: 3245: 3220: 3205: 3189: 3162: 3093: 3076: 3051: 3037: 3015: 2985: 2960: 2900: 2871: 2853: 2838: 2808: 2747: 2712: 2678: 2662: 2555: 2540: 2523: 2506: 2427: 2368: 2313: 2296: 2265: 2237: 2218: 2196: 2174: 2136: 2038: 2018: 1981: 1965: 1949: 1920: 1905: 1841: 1826: 1811: 1784: 1757: 1727: 1395: 1365: 1337: 1311: 1280: 1178: 1158: 864: 833: 813: 784: 770: 738: 711: 691: 674: 647: 384: 358: 319: 281: 90: 3316:. We also have a plethora of other policies and guidelines around the reputation of sources and the potentially 2684: 2644: 2636: 1431: 1343: 203: 2353:

Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement:

1622:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094719/https://westernindependent.com.au/2021/10/28/reimaging-the-gay-club/

748: 152: 2611:. These reviews are both functionally and intellectually independent from William Street Bird, so they meet 2187:...You know that this is an AfD on a venue, not a person, right? And that NBASIC is exclusively for people? 726: 2940: 2401:. If you go to SIGCOV it plainly tells you exactly what is meant for the "Significant coverage" threshold: 1400: 389: 253: 3291: 3182: 3072: 405:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220929074112/https://www.theurbanlist.com/perth/a-list/best-bars-northbridge

3345: 3317: 3000: 2245: 1851: 3669: 3154: 3114: 2858:

I'm only saying this because the line of experimental questioning has become disruptive and irritating.

2474:(alt from Numerical facts section: A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant) 1490:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522093819/https://www.broadsheet.com.au/perth/northbridge/bars/the-bird

65: 3234: 1083: 3138:(seems to be national but also to specialize in doing positive reviews of everthing, i.e. promotion); 2047:

The fact that you think sources can collectively constitute significant coverage indicates underlying

3529:

include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or

3357: 3276: 3216: 3047: 3033: 2981: 2972:

when someone tells them they are getting out of line because they do sometimes make a big deal about

2896: 2867: 2849: 2551: 2519: 2423: 2309: 2292: 2233: 2214: 2170: 2034: 1977: 1961: 1916: 1837: 1050: 1021: 948: 86: 3305:

Yes, most local publications are unreliable in establishing notability – our key policy states that

2995:

Talking about out of context. The point is that an encyclopaedic article cannot be written based on

2379: 2113:" How is the coverage significant if it focuses on such trivialities? Well, it isn't. It fails the " 1468: 1317: 1288: 3651: 3631: 3584: 3495: 3429: 3089: 3011: 2956: 2674: 2536: 2502: 2364: 2261: 2192: 2062:

and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability

1822: 1753: 1256: 920: 860: 239: 144: 96: 81:‎. No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against. 2459:

This is how I and I'm guessing pretty much everyone else here reads CORPDEPTH (bolded clarifiers):

2142: 1956:

Nothing in SIGCOV says a source has to be able to support an article in order to be used. Period.

523:

William Street Bird is mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV.

3516: 3464: 3384: 3333: 3295: 3243: 3230: 3203: 2929:

Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

2739: 2654: 1329: 1272: 1187: 1174: 1150: 780: 734: 354: 343: 335: 219: 3558: 3524: 3520: 2689: 1741: 953: 852: 266:, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. 2151:

I have grave CIR concerns about your interpretations and understandings of basic guidance since

3177: 3068: 2727: 2622: 1854:. I posted the entire article below if you want to examine it quickly. According to CORPDEPTH: 1268: 1252: 1248: 1240: 1100: 687: 311: 273: 104: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3668:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2999:

of the sources thus far, as none provide anything that show why this subject is notable. And

2969: 2910: 2052: 1745: 1523:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230522094251/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird

1260: 1232: 476:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210514103005/https://concreteplayground.com/perth/bars/the-bird

64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3602: 3543: 3447: 3415: 3149: 3110: 2828: 2798: 2743: 2702: 2658: 2126: 2008: 1939: 1895: 1801: 1717: 1355: 1333: 1301: 1276: 1154: 803: 760: 707: 664: 637: 3512: 3439: 3407: 3143: 2414: 2048: 1406: 1212:"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes." 819: 395: 263: 3353: 3272: 3212: 3043: 3029: 2977: 2892: 2863: 2845: 2547: 2515: 2495:

makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

2419: 2305: 2288: 2229: 2210: 2166: 2030: 1973: 1957: 1926: 1912: 1847: 1833: 1603:

Same as the one above, except this one contains only three sentences describing the Bird.

1264: 82: 2920:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

2066:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

1994:

makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization

1292:

not automatically prove the subject passes the GNG. Therefore, the subject lacks SIGCOV.

1197: 975:

area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs."

655:

per my source assessment table and the fact that I can't find any SIGCOV sources online.

3142:(ditto). The vast, vast majority of venues like this should never have WP articles, per 3647: 3627: 3580: 3491: 3425: 3367: 3106: 3085: 3007: 2952: 2670: 2532: 2498: 2360: 2257: 2188: 1818: 1749: 1228: 856: 3571:; an NCORP subject by definition cannot meet GNG if it doesn't meet NCORP. From WP:N: 2907:

Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test

1774:

newspaper with 168,000 subscribers would apply even if merely Western Australian. See

722: 3685: 3379: 3328: 3299: 3238: 3198: 2621:

had a circulation of over 250,000 in 2013 and is distributed throughout the state of

1865:

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability

1183: 1170: 989: 776: 730: 350: 3323:

Now let me know please what's so notable about that restaurant that can be found in

3535: 2607:

is a 249-word review. These reviews are all about William Street Bird and all meet

683: 306: 268: 2201:

Sure, I know that, but at least I'm getting the principles I'm talking about from

438:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230203130151/https://www.williamstreetbird.com/about

182: 3484:

Inclined to agree with SMcCandlish, the point of AUD is to avoid independent but

1167: 1003: 3594: 3564: 3539: 3443: 3411: 2948: 2820: 2790: 2694: 2118: 2083:

significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth

2000: 1931: 1887: 1793: 1737: 1709: 1347: 1293: 795: 752: 703: 656: 629: 2068:" What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Individual sources 2059:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other

1780: 1570:

General list of venues that contains only four sentences describing the Bird.

1537:

Similarly, this is also a very brief review that reads like an advertisement.

3519:'s analysis. So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails 2609:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage

1200:

Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:

3410:

with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.

2951:

there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources.

2945:

The reviews must be published outside of purely local interest publications

2647:" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in 2613:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources

1244: 3226: 589:

Mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV.

3298:

has its place in history also due to the pioneering implementation of the

982:"The Bird: A hipster hang-out with hip hop karaoke and a killer courtyard" 628:– above is a source assessment table of the article's sources I prepared. 3424:

Sources can be reliable and in-depth and still fail AUD, which these do.

2649:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria

1434:. Looks like it was published just for the sake of publishing something. 1146:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria

1326:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews

1316:

I don't consider venue reviews to be routine coverage that falls under

1115: 2738:

regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source".

2449:

totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance

1467:

Not only is it a relatively short review, it also comes off as hyper-

541: 3438:

Sources can be reliable and in-depth and I believe they really meet

3109:

wrote) is not the kind of coverage that establishes noteworthiness.

2633:

regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source".

2095:

A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($ 9 a glass)

2319:

The opening line considers the depth of coverage of the subject by

1040:

Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows."

823: 3593:

None of the sources presented above pass the GNG criteria anyway.

1869:

makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub

1771: 3567:, this is incorrect. NCORP prescribes which sources and coverage 2732:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience

2627:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience

2103:

The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails

3557:

So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails

3664:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3538:), it's likely that most of the sources on it will be reviews. 25: 1017:"These Are The Venues Where Western Australia Loves To Party" 3380: 3329: 3239: 3199: 3311:—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention 3006:

policy, as are the rest of those guidelines I cited above.

2327:

sources? Why would the guideline repeatedly emphasize that

2115:

addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth

2087:

addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth

1999:

refrain from accusing me of this, and communicate civilly.

721:

More sources added to article's talk page, including this

3534:. Until a music venue has been around for a while (e.g., 3442:

as demonstrated by Cunard. You can never change my mind.

3237:

and is open to business – is positively non-notable. —

2529:

but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation

2091:

this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday

1328:: "be significant", "be independent", and "be reliable". 794:

those sources don't even significantly cover "the Bird."

3267:

is notable, then it will be known all over the world is

2718:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)

2641:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)

749:

none of the sources you added to the article's talk page

419:

General list in which William Street Bird lacks SIGCOV.

3348:? It clearly says what I was explaining to you before, 3290:. Nestlé is notable for various reasons, including the 2757:

IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.

2432:

I started my reply before you struck your comments out.

2051:

issues with your understanding of relevant guidelines.

1504:

Extremely brief review that comes off as 100% ROUTINE.

790: 751:

demonstrate SIGCOV; they are instead very promotional.

178: 174: 170: 1012:

Additional sources that contribute less to notability:

238: 3067:. That's enough to meet GNG. (Braces for badgering). 2405:. More than a trivial mention is good enough to pass 874:

per the significant coverage in multiple independent

2107:

the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all

1770:

Even it it did require big sources, I would think a

1322:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)#Routine coverage

2726:is a newspaper distributed throughout the state of 252: 2099:The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol 1324:. These reviews meet the three items listed under 2923:Be completely independent of the article subject. 1863:of the subject by the source must be considered. 1792:by no means qualifies as "significant coverage." 490:Very short article with a very promotional tone. 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3676:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3642:Note: This discussion has been included in the 3622:Note: This discussion has been included in the 2787:incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists 2164:of the basic understanding needed to edit here. 851:- It's a business, but not a notable one. Fails 288:Note: This discussion has been included in the 2914: 3644:list of Companies-related deletion discussions 2926:Meet the standard for being a reliable source. 1004:https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/about-us 3624:list of Business-related deletion discussions 2755: 2462: 2351: 2328: 2162:etc, etc, then you are falling far too short 1857: 747:IsolatedNation is not a reliable source, and 8: 3523:. I also think an interesting analogy is to 2683:Certain things that are average, normal, or 2275:per the sentence that specifically says it; 2158:, source 2 has enough coverage to go toward 1046:"The Best Live Music Venues WA Has To Offer" 136:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 2720:does not require companies to "stand out". 2029:experimental theories to yourself. Thanks. 3641: 3621: 3490:sources. May review in more detail later. 2844:argument now. You are pushing it too far. 2635:Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not 2600: 2592: 2281:is not sufficient to establish notability. 1374: 1002:There is editorial oversight according to 363: 287: 3103:telling you the price of drinks in a club 3340:There is no requirement that sources be 2891:: per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. 2752:This is the article you're referring to: 2604: 2596: 2591:Venue reviews are not routine sources. 1287:Every one of these sources consists of 45:For an explanation of the process, see 3572: 3556: 3528: 3527:, which provides that notable sources 3469:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 3349: 3306: 3102: 2974:Knowledge (XXG):Competence is required 2944: 2906: 2786: 2528: 2448: 2396:These criteria, generally, follow the 2276: 2242: 2146: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2065: 2056: 1991: 1878: 1198:Concrete Playground's editorial policy 682:Fails GNG as per Nythar's assessment. 2394:and then it goes on to tell you that 2026:In other words, you are making it up. 1144:to allow William Street Bird to pass 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2392:that are independent of the subject. 1776:The Sunday Times (Western Australia) 1111:"The Bird fights early closing time" 2966:find somebody else to debate with. 2390:multiple reliable secondary sources 2111:the bartenders’ smiles are genuine. 725:, and a review of a performance by 2939:Moreover, under significance, the 542:https://www.williamstreetbird.com/ 24: 2493:this requirement for each source 1664: 1631: 1598: 1565: 1532: 1499: 1462: 1425: 1140:There is sufficient coverage in 980:McCarthy, Kristie (2018-09-26). 584: 547: 518: 485: 453: 443: 414: 292:lists for the following topics: 121:Introduction to deletion process 29: 3307:Knowledge (XXG) articles cover 2860:I'm done being experimented on. 2468:is not sufficient to establish 1911:that dumb idea into your head. 1790:The source you are referring to 1074:Mountain, Isabel (2021-10-28). 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3172:Northbridge, Western Australia 1237:Johns Hopkins University Press 1203:Its editor is Samantha Teague. 915:Bennett, Andrew (2010-07-23). 885:Veenhuyzen, Max (2014-08-31). 41:deletion review on 2023 June 4 1: 3147: 3288:independent from the subject 2398:general notability guideline 2256:contributing to notability. 2252:This is the requirement for 2074:separately and independently 1971:Please stop making up rules. 1109:Pepper, Daile (2010-02-23). 1054:. 2015-10-30. Archived from 1025:. 2016-10-12. Archived from 952:. 2017-10-06. Archived from 3576:organizations and companies 2734:, which requires "at least 2629:, which requires "at least 2246:very brief, incomplete stub 2064:"; one of the criteria is " 1879:very brief, incomplete stub 552:The venue's website again. 454: 111:(AfD)? Read these primers! 3708: 2909:. This is incorrect. From 1665: 1632: 1599: 1566: 1533: 1500: 1463: 1426: 1076:"Reimaging the (gay) club" 881:Selection of four sources: 585: 548: 519: 486: 444: 415: 2992:16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2489:by each qualifying source 2184:16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2044:16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 1987:16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 1685: 1380:Source assessment table: 1377: 605: 369:Source assessment table: 366: 3692:Pages at deletion review 3666:Please do not modify it. 3656:01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3636:01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3613:04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3589:01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3552:21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC) 3504:11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 3477:03:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 3452:01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3434:16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 3420:02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 3387:01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 3362:17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC) 3336:10:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 3325:independent, unsponsored 3292:worldwide Nestlé boycott 3281:04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 3246:10:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 3221:09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 3206:21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 3190:13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 3163:08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 3119:19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 3094:17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 3077:11:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 3052:12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 3038:12:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 3016:11:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2986:11:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2961:10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2901:01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2877:12:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2872:11:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2854:10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2839:09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2809:08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2748:08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2713:07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2679:07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2663:07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 2556:16:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2541:08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2524:04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2507:19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2428:03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 2369:23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2314:22:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2297:22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2266:21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2238:19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2219:21:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2197:21:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2180:18:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2175:17:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2137:14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2039:13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 2019:10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1982:10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1966:10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1950:09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1921:09:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1906:09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1842:09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1827:16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1812:15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1785:15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1758:11:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1736:Not slavishly following 1728:11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1366:10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1338:10:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1312:10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1281:07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 1179:14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1159:10:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 865:09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 834:09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 814:08:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 785:04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 771:04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 739:04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 712:04:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 692:03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 675:03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 648:03:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 359:03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 320:02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 282:02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 91:12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 61:Please do not modify it. 3020:Ok, I see now you said 2248:about the organization. 1871:about the organization. 3028:source. My apologies. 2932: 2785:claims the Bird is an 2781: 2603:is a 149-word review. 2599:is a 347-word review. 2595:is a 285-word review. 2497: 2411:each individual source 2357: 2340: 2277:Trivial or incidental 1990:Argue with CORPDEPTH: 1873: 1099:is a newspaper run by 193:edits since nomination 3313:by the world at large 2815:Here's an experiment: 2441:what type of coverage 2279:coverage of a subject 2055:specifically states " 1401:Significant coverage? 1320:, which redirects to 887:"The Scene: The Bird" 448:The venue's website. 390:Significant coverage? 109:Articles for deletion 3344:. Have you not read 2470:or contribute toward 2386:significant coverage 1405:Count source toward 1257:Taylor & Francis 822:per their aboutpage: 394:Count source toward 3140:Concrete Playground 2643:that a venue must " 2447:CORPDEPTH is not a 2076:of each other, and 1692:source assess table 1097:Western Independent 1080:Western Independent 986:Concrete Playground 921:News Corp Australia 612:source assess table 145:William Street Bird 97:William Street Bird 3296:Ford Motor Company 3130:of Perth (local); 826:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 3658: 3638: 3569:count towards GNG 2943:guidance states: 2728:Western Australia 2623:Western Australia 2466:by a given source 2454:immediately after 2355:1.Be significant 2334:source must meet 1861:depth of coverage 1702: 1701: 1698: 1657: 1624: 1591: 1558: 1525: 1492: 1455: 1418: 1101:Curtin University 622: 621: 618: 577: 544: 511: 478: 440: 407: 322: 126:Guide to deletion 116:How to contribute 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 3699: 3599: 3382: 3331: 3241: 3201: 3188: 3185: 3180: 3161: 3144:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY 2825: 2817: 2795: 2723:The Sunday Times 2699: 2618:The Sunday Times 2123: 2078:each source must 2005: 1936: 1892: 1798: 1783: 1714: 1696: 1690: 1686: 1678: 1677: 1668: 1667: 1653: 1645: 1644: 1635: 1634: 1620: 1612: 1611: 1602: 1601: 1587: 1579: 1578: 1569: 1568: 1554: 1546: 1545: 1536: 1535: 1521: 1513: 1512: 1503: 1502: 1488: 1480: 1479: 1466: 1465: 1451: 1443: 1442: 1429: 1428: 1414: 1375: 1352: 1298: 1169: 1142:reliable sources 1131: 1129: 1128: 1119:. Archived from 1094: 1092: 1091: 1082:. Archived from 1066: 1064: 1063: 1037: 1035: 1034: 1000: 998: 997: 988:. Archived from 964: 962: 961: 935: 933: 932: 923:. Archived from 907: 905: 904: 895:. Archived from 892:The Sunday Times 876:reliable sources 800: 757: 661: 634: 616: 610: 606: 598: 597: 588: 587: 573: 565: 564: 551: 550: 540: 532: 531: 522: 521: 507: 499: 498: 489: 488: 474: 466: 465: 457: 456: 447: 446: 436: 428: 427: 418: 417: 403: 364: 290:deletion sorting 257: 256: 242: 186: 168: 106: 63: 33: 32: 26: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3674:deletion review 3595: 3368:generating buzz 3183: 3178: 3175: 2905:Above you say: 2821: 2813: 2791: 2695: 2685:run-of-the-mill 2601:Broadsheet 2017 2593:Veenhuyzen 2014 2439:GNG to tell us 2343:utterly useless 2145:where it says, 2119: 2001: 1932: 1888: 1794: 1779: 1710: 1694: 1688: 1673: 1672: 1640: 1639: 1607: 1606: 1574: 1573: 1541: 1540: 1508: 1507: 1475: 1474: 1438: 1437: 1382: 1348: 1294: 1265:Text Publishing 1126: 1124: 1108: 1089: 1087: 1073: 1061: 1059: 1044: 1032: 1030: 1015: 995: 993: 979: 959: 957: 942: 930: 928: 914: 902: 900: 884: 796: 753: 727:Stella Donnelly 657: 630: 614: 608: 593: 592: 560: 559: 527: 526: 494: 493: 461: 460: 423: 422: 371: 328:Procedural Keep 199: 159: 143: 140: 103: 100: 77:The result was 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3705: 3703: 3695: 3694: 3684: 3683: 3679: 3678: 3660: 3659: 3639: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3506: 3487:indiscriminate 3479: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3375: 3321: 3309:notable topics 3303: 3255:coverage like 3192: 3165: 3121: 3096: 3079: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3040: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2856: 2811: 2782: 2778: 2776: 2773: 2771: 2769: 2767: 2765: 2762: 2760: 2758: 2753: 2681: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2460: 2457: 2445: 2433: 2354: 2285:such coverage 2268: 2250: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 1968: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1874: 1855: 1829: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1731: 1730: 1700: 1699: 1683: 1682: 1670: 1662: 1660: 1658: 1650: 1649: 1637: 1629: 1627: 1625: 1617: 1616: 1604: 1596: 1594: 1592: 1584: 1583: 1571: 1563: 1561: 1559: 1551: 1550: 1538: 1530: 1528: 1526: 1518: 1517: 1505: 1497: 1495: 1493: 1485: 1484: 1472: 1460: 1458: 1456: 1448: 1447: 1435: 1423: 1421: 1419: 1411: 1410: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1229:Academic Press 1226: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1163: 1162: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1106: 1071: 1042: 1010: 1009: 1008: 977: 940: 912: 868: 867: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 742: 741: 695: 694: 677: 650: 620: 619: 603: 602: 590: 582: 580: 578: 570: 569: 557: 555: 553: 545: 537: 536: 524: 516: 514: 512: 504: 503: 491: 483: 481: 479: 471: 470: 458: 451: 449: 441: 433: 432: 420: 412: 410: 408: 400: 399: 392: 387: 382: 377: 373: 372: 367: 362: 361: 346: 324: 323: 260: 259: 196: 139: 138: 133: 123: 118: 101: 99: 94: 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3704: 3693: 3690: 3689: 3687: 3677: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3640: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3620: 3614: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3600: 3598: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3579: 3577: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3560: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3548:contributions 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3511:: This meets 3510: 3507: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3483: 3480: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3402: 3388: 3385: 3383: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3304: 3301: 3300:assembly line 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3242: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3202: 3196: 3193: 3191: 3187: 3186: 3181: 3173: 3169: 3166: 3164: 3159: 3156: 3153: 3152: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3122: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3097: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3080: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3024:sources, not 3023: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2991: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2970:not listening 2964: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2941:WP:PRODUCTREV 2938: 2937: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2887: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2824: 2816: 2812: 2810: 2806: 2803: 2800: 2796: 2794: 2788: 2783: 2780: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2698: 2691: 2686: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605:McCarthy 2018 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2587: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2393: 2391: 2387: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2356: 2350:source, e.g. 2349: 2344: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2280: 2274: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2249: 2247: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2122: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2081:not contain " 2079: 2075: 2072:be evaluated 2071: 2067: 2063: 2061: 2060: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2006: 2004: 1997: 1995: 1989: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1935: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1891: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1797: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1713: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1693: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1671: 1663: 1661: 1659: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1638: 1630: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1597: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1572: 1564: 1562: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1531: 1529: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1511: 1506: 1498: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1461: 1459: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1441: 1436: 1433: 1424: 1422: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1394: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1351: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1299: 1297: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1135: 1123:on 2023-05-22 1122: 1118: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1086:on 2023-05-22 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1070: 1058:on 2023-05-22 1057: 1053: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1029:on 2023-05-22 1028: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1011: 1007: 1005: 992:on 2023-05-22 991: 987: 983: 978: 976: 972: 970: 956:on 2023-05-22 955: 951: 950: 945: 941: 939: 927:on 2023-05-22 926: 922: 918: 913: 911: 899:on 2023-05-22 898: 894: 893: 888: 883: 882: 880: 879: 877: 873: 870: 869: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 847: 846: 835: 831: 827: 824: 821: 817: 816: 815: 811: 808: 805: 801: 799: 792: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 768: 765: 762: 758: 756: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 723:SIGCOV source 720: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 709: 705: 701: 693: 689: 685: 681: 678: 676: 672: 669: 666: 662: 660: 654: 651: 649: 645: 642: 639: 635: 633: 627: 624: 623: 613: 604: 601: 596: 591: 583: 581: 579: 576: 572: 571: 568: 563: 558: 556: 554: 546: 543: 539: 538: 535: 530: 525: 517: 515: 513: 510: 506: 505: 502: 497: 492: 484: 482: 480: 477: 473: 472: 469: 464: 459: 452: 450: 442: 439: 435: 434: 431: 426: 421: 413: 411: 409: 406: 402: 401: 397: 393: 391: 388: 386: 383: 381: 378: 375: 374: 370: 365: 360: 356: 352: 347: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 326: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 308: 303: 299: 295: 291: 286: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 270: 265: 255: 251: 248: 245: 241: 237: 233: 230: 227: 224: 221: 218: 215: 212: 209: 205: 202: 201:Find sources: 197: 194: 190: 184: 180: 176: 172: 167: 163: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 141: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 122: 119: 117: 114: 113: 112: 110: 105: 98: 95: 93: 92: 88: 84: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3665: 3663: 3605: 3596: 3568: 3536:Webster Hall 3530: 3508: 3485: 3481: 3467:'s sources. 3460: 3403: 3371: 3346:WP:SPONSORED 3341: 3324: 3318:WP:SPONSORED 3312: 3308: 3287: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3194: 3176: 3167: 3150: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3128:Sunday Times 3127: 3123: 3098: 3081: 3069:Doctorhawkes 3064: 3025: 3021: 3003: 3001:WP:CORPDEPTH 2996: 2989: 2967: 2915: 2888: 2874: 2859: 2831: 2822: 2814: 2801: 2792: 2756: 2735: 2721: 2705: 2696: 2653: 2634: 2630: 2616: 2597:Bennett 2010 2588: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2463: 2453: 2440: 2436: 2435:NCORP works 2410: 2406: 2402: 2397: 2395: 2389: 2385: 2383: 2375: 2352: 2347: 2342: 2335: 2331: 2329: 2324: 2320: 2302: 2284: 2278: 2273:each subject 2272: 2270: 2253: 2206: 2202: 2181: 2177: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2129: 2120: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2058: 2057: 2041: 2025: 2011: 2002: 1993: 1984: 1970: 1942: 1933: 1898: 1889: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1858: 1852:WP:CORPDEPTH 1804: 1795: 1766: 1720: 1711: 1705: 1679: 1674: 1646: 1641: 1613: 1608: 1580: 1575: 1547: 1542: 1514: 1509: 1481: 1476: 1444: 1439: 1391:Independent? 1379: 1358: 1349: 1304: 1295: 1190: 1149: 1132: 1125:. Retrieved 1121:the original 1114: 1096: 1095: 1088:. Retrieved 1084:the original 1079: 1067: 1060:. Retrieved 1056:the original 1049: 1038: 1031:. Retrieved 1027:the original 1020: 1001: 994:. Retrieved 990:the original 985: 973: 968: 965: 958:. Retrieved 954:the original 947: 936: 929:. Retrieved 925:the original 908: 901:. Retrieved 897:the original 890: 871: 848: 806: 797: 763: 754: 718: 699: 697: 696: 679: 667: 658: 652: 640: 631: 625: 599: 594: 566: 561: 533: 528: 500: 495: 467: 462: 429: 424: 380:Independent? 368: 327: 305: 267: 261: 249: 243: 235: 228: 222: 216: 210: 200: 102: 79:no consensus 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 3465:User:Cunard 3342:unsponsored 3327:sources. — 3151:SMcCandlish 3008:Sirfurboy🏄 2953:Sirfurboy🏄 2671:Sirfurboy🏄 2625:. It meets 2533:Sirfurboy🏄 2483:significant 2472:notability 2254:each source 1882:SIGCOV per 1819:Sirfurboy🏄 1750:Sirfurboy🏄 857:Sirfurboy🏄 791:this search 226:free images 3354:Huggums537 3273:Huggums537 3213:Huggums537 3136:Broadsheet 3111:XOR'easter 3044:Huggums537 3030:Huggums537 2990:Updated on 2978:Huggums537 2893:Huggums537 2875:Updated on 2864:Huggums537 2846:Huggums537 2548:Huggums537 2516:Huggums537 2420:Huggums537 2380:WP:ORGCRIT 2378:criteria. 2332:individual 2306:Huggums537 2289:Huggums537 2230:Huggums537 2211:Huggums537 2178:Updated on 2167:Huggums537 2160:notability 2156:notability 2031:Huggums537 1974:Huggums537 1958:Huggums537 1927:Huggums537 1913:Huggums537 1848:Huggums537 1834:Huggums537 1432:stands out 1318:WP:ROUTINE 1289:WP:ROUTINE 1127:2023-05-22 1090:2023-05-22 1062:2023-05-22 1033:2023-05-22 996:2023-05-22 969:Broadsheet 960:2023-05-22 949:Broadsheet 944:"The Bird" 931:2023-05-22 917:"The Bird" 903:2023-05-22 83:Randykitty 3670:talk page 3648:JoelleJay 3628:JoelleJay 3581:JoelleJay 3492:Alpha3031 3426:JoelleJay 3253:worldwide 3235:it exists 3134:(local); 3107:Sirfurboy 3086:JoelleJay 2730:so meets 2645:stand out 2637:stand out 2499:JoelleJay 2361:JoelleJay 2258:JoelleJay 2203:somewhere 2189:JoelleJay 2143:WP:NBASIC 1884:#Audience 1396:Reliable? 1344:stand out 1245:Routledge 1051:The Music 1022:The Music 702:No SIGCOV 385:Reliable? 302:Australia 66:talk page 3686:Category 3672:or in a 3381:kashmīrī 3330:kashmīrī 3320:content. 3302:concept. 3294:, while 3240:kashmīrī 3200:kashmīrī 3168:Redirect 3132:PerthNow 2862:Thanks. 2690:WP:NCORP 2589:Comment: 2325:multiple 2207:anywhere 2149:, while 1742:WP:NCORP 1194:contribs 1184:Valereee 1171:Valereee 1134:section. 853:WP:NCORP 777:Jack4576 731:Jack4576 351:Jack4576 316:Contribs 278:Contribs 189:View log 130:glossary 68:or in a 3531:reviews 3482:Comment 2911:WP:SIRS 2476:. Deep 2376:primary 2182:Updated 2109:" and " 2105:" and " 2101:" and " 2097:" and " 2093:" and " 2053:WP:SIRS 2042:Updated 1985:Updated 1746:WP:SIRS 1706:Comment 1469:ROUTINE 1387:Source 1263:), and 1116:WAtoday 719:Comment 684:LibStar 626:Comment 376:Source 307:JML1148 300:, and 269:JML1148 232:WP refs 220:scholar 162:protect 157:history 107:New to 3597:Nythar 3565:Voorts 3540:voorts 3517:Cunard 3444:SBKSPP 3440:WP:GNG 3412:SBKSPP 3408:WP:GNG 3406:Meets 3269:really 3265:really 3257:Nestle 3227:Nestlé 3195:Delete 3184:Anchor 3124:Delete 3099:Delete 3082:Delete 2976:here. 2949:Nythar 2823:Nythar 2793:Nythar 2740:Cunard 2697:Nythar 2655:Cunard 2444:NCORP. 2437:within 2415:WP:NNC 2382:says, 2348:single 2121:Nythar 2049:WP:CIR 2003:Nythar 1934:Nythar 1890:Nythar 1850:: See 1796:Nythar 1738:Nythar 1712:Nythar 1471:-ish. 1350:Nythar 1330:Cunard 1296:Nythar 1273:Cunard 1151:Cunard 849:Delete 820:WP:SPS 818:Seems 798:Nythar 755:Nythar 704:Adler3 700:Delete 680:Delete 659:Nythar 653:Delete 632:Nythar 264:WP:GNG 262:Fails 204:Google 166:delete 3559:NCORP 3525:NSONG 3521:NCORP 3179:Frank 3022:these 2764:hand. 2070:must 1781:A. B. 1772:Perth 298:Radio 294:Music 247:JSTOR 208:books 183:views 175:watch 171:links 16:< 3652:talk 3632:talk 3585:talk 3544:talk 3515:per 3509:Keep 3473:talk 3463:per 3461:Keep 3448:talk 3430:talk 3416:talk 3404:Keep 3358:talk 3277:talk 3261:Ford 3231:Ford 3217:talk 3115:talk 3105:(as 3090:talk 3073:talk 3065:Keep 3048:talk 3034:talk 3026:that 3012:talk 2982:talk 2957:talk 2897:talk 2889:Keep 2868:talk 2850:talk 2775:red. 2744:talk 2675:talk 2659:talk 2552:talk 2537:talk 2520:talk 2503:talk 2481:(aka 2424:talk 2409:for 2407:SIRS 2365:talk 2310:talk 2293:talk 2262:talk 2234:talk 2215:talk 2193:talk 2171:talk 2035:talk 1978:talk 1962:talk 1917:talk 1886:.) — 1859:The 1838:talk 1823:talk 1767:Keep 1754:talk 1334:talk 1277:talk 1251:and 1188:talk 1175:talk 1155:talk 872:Keep 861:talk 830:talk 781:talk 735:talk 708:talk 688:talk 355:talk 312:Talk 274:Talk 240:FENS 214:news 179:logs 153:talk 149:edit 87:talk 3513:GNG 3372:Any 3259:or 3170:to 3160:😼 2997:any 2736:one 2631:one 2388:in 2336:all 2330:An 1778:. — 1407:GNG 1271:). 1255:), 1243:), 1235:), 396:GNG 344:(4) 340:(3) 336:(2) 332:(1) 254:TWL 187:– ( 3688:: 3654:) 3646:. 3634:) 3626:. 3611:) 3609:🍀 3603:💬 3587:) 3550:) 3502:) 3498:• 3475:) 3450:) 3432:) 3418:) 3370:. 3360:) 3352:. 3279:) 3229:, 3219:) 3148:— 3146:. 3117:) 3092:) 3075:) 3050:) 3036:) 3014:) 3004:is 2984:) 2959:) 2899:) 2870:) 2852:) 2837:) 2835:🍀 2829:💬 2807:) 2805:🍀 2799:💬 2746:) 2711:) 2709:🍀 2703:💬 2677:) 2661:) 2615:. 2554:) 2539:) 2522:) 2505:) 2478:or 2426:) 2367:) 2312:) 2295:) 2264:) 2236:) 2217:) 2195:) 2173:) 2135:) 2133:🍀 2127:💬 2037:) 2017:) 2015:🍀 2009:💬 1980:) 1964:) 1948:) 1946:🍀 1940:💬 1919:) 1904:) 1902:🍀 1896:💬 1840:) 1825:) 1810:) 1808:🍀 1802:💬 1756:) 1748:. 1744:, 1726:) 1724:🍀 1718:💬 1695:}} 1689:{{ 1680:No 1647:No 1614:No 1581:No 1548:No 1515:No 1482:No 1445:No 1409:? 1364:) 1362:🍀 1356:💬 1336:) 1310:) 1308:🍀 1302:💬 1279:) 1177:) 1157:) 1113:. 1078:. 1048:. 1019:. 984:. 971:." 946:. 919:. 889:. 863:) 832:) 812:) 810:🍀 804:💬 783:) 769:) 767:🍀 761:💬 737:) 729:. 710:) 690:) 673:) 671:🍀 665:💬 646:) 644:🍀 638:💬 615:}} 609:{{ 600:No 567:No 534:No 501:No 468:No 430:No 398:? 357:) 342:, 338:, 334:, 318:) 314:| 304:. 296:, 280:) 276:| 234:) 191:| 181:| 177:| 173:| 169:| 164:| 160:| 155:| 151:| 89:) 43:. 3650:( 3630:( 3606:- 3601:( 3583:( 3578:. 3563:@ 3561:. 3546:/ 3542:( 3500:c 3496:t 3494:( 3471:( 3446:( 3428:( 3414:( 3356:( 3275:( 3215:( 3158:¢ 3155:☏ 3113:( 3088:( 3071:( 3046:( 3032:( 3010:( 2980:( 2955:( 2913:: 2895:( 2866:( 2848:( 2832:- 2827:( 2802:- 2797:( 2742:( 2706:- 2701:( 2673:( 2657:( 2550:( 2535:( 2518:( 2501:( 2485:) 2422:( 2363:( 2321:a 2308:( 2291:( 2260:( 2232:( 2213:( 2191:( 2169:( 2130:- 2125:( 2033:( 2012:- 2007:( 1996:. 1976:( 1960:( 1943:- 1938:( 1925:@ 1915:( 1899:- 1894:( 1846:@ 1836:( 1821:( 1805:- 1800:( 1752:( 1721:- 1716:( 1697:. 1675:✘ 1642:✘ 1609:✘ 1576:✘ 1543:✘ 1510:✘ 1477:✘ 1440:✘ 1359:- 1354:( 1332:( 1305:- 1300:( 1275:( 1269:1 1267:( 1261:1 1259:( 1253:2 1249:1 1247:( 1241:1 1239:( 1233:1 1231:( 1191:· 1186:( 1173:( 1153:( 1130:. 1093:. 1065:. 1036:. 999:. 963:. 934:. 906:. 878:. 859:( 855:. 828:( 807:- 802:( 779:( 764:- 759:( 733:( 706:( 698:* 686:( 668:- 663:( 641:- 636:( 617:. 595:✘ 562:✘ 529:✘ 496:✘ 463:✘ 425:✘ 353:( 310:( 272:( 258:) 250:· 244:· 236:· 229:· 223:· 217:· 211:· 206:( 198:( 195:) 185:) 147:( 132:) 128:( 85:( 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/William Street Bird - Knowledge (XXG)

Index