Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SF Signal
SF Signal does appear in a number of secondary sources. And  tells us that  is in place "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". That is already the case as the article stands now, so I see no problem here. SF Signal has also repeatedly won a major award. That's a criterion to have an article aside from coverage in secondary sources according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films). It ''is'' also a criterion in . Sure the phrasing there is "may be notable" and "should probably have an article", rather than "should have an article". But there's no problem whatsoever with verifiability, and the award has a Wikipedia page. And, in contrast, what would be the benefit for Wikipedia in ''not'' having this article, that would outweigh the guideline that says that we ''probably should have one
— User:Daranios, 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WHYN||WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT (Wikipedia:Notability)