- Emerald Mine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I found a lot of new sources since deletion and included them on the german Emerald Mine article Koren (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Their comments were made before even half of the sources were added, so I ask for a judgement of _all_ sources at the current state of the article. Emerald Mine has even got a Hit-award, and reached the yesterday-score for another. Don't count awards anymore as notable? "Notability is not temporary." And moreover, I thought the participants here would form an opinion based on the sources and not on the opinion of someone other. --Koren (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would vote for a relist, but the sources were already discussed on the talk page by the participants, the new sources presented seem very similar in scope and content, and I don't see another AfD turning out any differently, sorry. SportingFlyer talk 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A criticism was, that only the first part had sources, and the other parts not. I have added sources for the other parts, thus fixed this incompleteness and no reaction came.--Koren (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation/allow another AfD The AfD consensus seemed to be that there weren't enough sources on each particular game. More of the same seems like it would have potentially (likely?) overcome the AfD !voter's concerns. On top of that, WP:N now appears to be met (subject to consensus on a future AfD). Hobit (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|