The result was no consensus. Given the low participation, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Does not meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NSOFTWARE. Originally nominated for PROD with the justification Lone source is to an informational page for a UN-sponsored EDI standard...which the subject is based on. No mention of the subject in any reliable source that I could find, although there's a surprising amount of other things named UNIDOC. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE
, dePROD by
Thomasakeri who said they would provide reliable sources. However, the two additional sources appear to both be directly connected to the subject (
[1],
[2]) and the last one doesn't even mention the subject. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Jo-Jo. I've just added a note about the meaning of UNIDOC in Germany and a source about this. In addition, the German Wikipedia, despite very strict rules there, has accepted my UNIDOC article. Maybe that's an indication of relevance for you, too. Thomasakeri ( talk) 10:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi to all: Is everything o.k. now with "my little article project"? Will the status "considered for deletion" end tomorrow and the article remain? As a newcomer I would be very happy for a short explanation of the further process (instead of losing my work without any comment). Thanks for understanding. Thomasakeri ( talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosguill, for this clear explanation of the process! Thomasakeri ( talk) 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
During the last weeks, the number of sources (references) has risen to nine. At least six of them are independent. Thomasakeri ( talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Given the low participation, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Does not meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NSOFTWARE. Originally nominated for PROD with the justification Lone source is to an informational page for a UN-sponsored EDI standard...which the subject is based on. No mention of the subject in any reliable source that I could find, although there's a surprising amount of other things named UNIDOC. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE
, dePROD by
Thomasakeri who said they would provide reliable sources. However, the two additional sources appear to both be directly connected to the subject (
[1],
[2]) and the last one doesn't even mention the subject. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Jo-Jo. I've just added a note about the meaning of UNIDOC in Germany and a source about this. In addition, the German Wikipedia, despite very strict rules there, has accepted my UNIDOC article. Maybe that's an indication of relevance for you, too. Thomasakeri ( talk) 10:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi to all: Is everything o.k. now with "my little article project"? Will the status "considered for deletion" end tomorrow and the article remain? As a newcomer I would be very happy for a short explanation of the further process (instead of losing my work without any comment). Thanks for understanding. Thomasakeri ( talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosguill, for this clear explanation of the process! Thomasakeri ( talk) 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
During the last weeks, the number of sources (references) has risen to nine. At least six of them are independent. Thomasakeri ( talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)