Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
affect any other deletion process. Shortcuts WP:DPAFDWP:DPAFD WP:DELAFDWP:DELAFD Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after...
Click to read more »clearly expanding and changing. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and none of these support deletion...
Click to read more »WP:DELAFD cited above. Roches (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy Keep per Andrew D. above: A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It...
Click to read more »article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting. Nakon 03:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) AfDs for this article:...
Click to read more »18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Keep- This is absurd and in violation of WP:DELAFD. At the previous Afd for the article which closed not more than a month...
Click to read more »previous AFD participants. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Keep WP:DELAFD vexatious renomination Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »inclusion. -- Kheider (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »to change this and so it's just a case of WP:KEEPLISTING contrary to WP:DELAFD, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »7 November 2019 (UTC) Keep The nomination is obviously improper per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:DELAFD: "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) Keep Seems to be a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. Please listen. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »closed last week and which is still under further discussion at DRV. WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »31 October 2019 (UTC) Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Did you take a look at the...
Click to read more »November 2019 (UTC) Keep AfD closed exactly three days ago. Refer to WP:DELAFD WP:DISRUPTIVE renomination. Once notable always notable WP:NTEMP WP:PRESERVE...
Click to read more »at AfD. As the nomination is mostly personal bias per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »the nominator can't be bothered to provide a link. Please note that WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »Comics". The real issue here is that this is the fourth nomination and so WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »fails to address any of the points made so recently. See WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »re-nominated one day after the close of the previous AfD, in violation of WP:DELAFD, and should be speedily closed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018...
Click to read more »ordinary editing not deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives. See also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination just repeats the previous nomination and so is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »August 2021 (UTC) Keep Another vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD as no valid reasons to delete are provided. If the list is short, then this...
Click to read more »17:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) The relevant bit of the deletion policy is WP:DELAFD, which basically says that an article can be deleted if editors reach consensus...
Click to read more »been nominated before and was kept, this seems to be a clear case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination has allowed "a reasonable amount of time to pass" as per WP:DELAFD before renomination. I have no opinion on the article itself, but I feel...
Click to read more »notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Speedy Keep - WP:DELAFD no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD. Most of what Miss...
Click to read more »once as Renominations in such a manner may be considered disruption. WP:DELAFD Muneebll (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Delete Fails to meet Wikipedia's...
Click to read more »Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:POINT and WP:DELAFD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Strange, I see only one WP:POINT...
Click to read more »only 5 weeks since this was a clear keep so this seems to be case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »article, but to renom an article two months after a snow keep is against WP:DELAFD. I suggest a snow close.Martin451 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Sounds appropriate...
Click to read more »February 2017 (UTC) Speedy Keep As way too soon for another nomination per WP:DELAFD - "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favour of keeping...
Click to read more »"KEEP". This is therefore a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. As the nomination hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, we needn't waste our time...
Click to read more »(Suufi) (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Procedural keep per WP:DELAFD. "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly...
Click to read more »false and, as this is a repeat nomination, it seems to be vexatious per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Keep. Most of the content...
Click to read more »means that all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD). Seven nominations...
Click to read more »argumentation at that time, it is too soon to start it all over again. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »don't need is a repeat nomination, one day after discussion has closed. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »clear evidence of notability. The nomination is a plain violation of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »we note in that previous discussion is that the outcome was Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »and was a clear Keep. This is therefore a disruptive nomination per WP:DELAFD which explains that it's "disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the...
Click to read more »result was Keep and this nomination presents no new argument or evidence. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »that this has been at AfD before when the result was a clear keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination itself talks of merger. AFD is therefore inappropriate. Note also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »Keep We already had a nomination this year and the result was Keep. WP:DELAFD states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of...
Click to read more »discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.” Comment: No, WP:DELAFD doesn’t...
Click to read more »which is a different question than whether to delete it - please look at WP:DELAFD (and pages linked from there) which is the relevant guide for deletion discussions...
Click to read more »nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »discussion is procedurally improper. For further confirmation of this, see WP:DELAFD, "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute...
Click to read more »"important" to the world to be considered notable. A direct quotation from WP:DELAFD, AfD processes "are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating...
Click to read more »split it.Djflem (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD which states "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally...
Click to read more »(actually two) that meets NCORP and one that you're happy to defend. I mean WP:DELAFD policy says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants...
Click to read more »passes WP:GNG. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:DELAFD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SK; &c. And for more essays see WP:NOTCLEANUP;...
Click to read more »12 December 2020 (UTC) Keep This is a disruptive re-nomination per WP:DELAFD, being a pointy spinoff from the current RfA. The nomination's claim that...
Click to read more »recent result of Keep, this immediate renomination is disruptive per WP:DELAFD. There is no case for deletion because this is obviously a spinoff from...
Click to read more »previous comments at one of the other three AfDs. One just ended Dec 19. WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »result was Keep both times. Starting a third discussion is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »but is still here, this is an obvious case of WP:NOTAGAIN contrary to WP:DELAFD: " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »traits in the various portrayals. So, the usual policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53...
Click to read more »result, the nominator should be warned not to repeat this disruption per WP:DELAFD which states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the...
Click to read more »November 2019 (UTC) Keep Even thought the last close was no consensus keep. WP:DELAFD My comments have not changed from two weeks ago. Passes WP:Product a specific...
Click to read more »case - with a finding that we should have no more such nominations per WP:DELAFD. Warden (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Not that anyone cares at this...
Click to read more »reason to Delete. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Keep WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious WP:DELAFD: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly...
Click to read more »pages for these discussions. ... this nomination is a blatant failure of WP:DELAFD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:JDL. This is the second time after an AfD that this...
Click to read more »nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD. . . responded to with The last nomination was 9 years ago. You are acting...
Click to read more »and that nothing has changed. The nomination is therefore contrary to WP:DELAFD which states that " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in...
Click to read more »WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.” Comment: No, WP:DELAFD doesn’t...
Click to read more »expert so to speak, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC) WP:DELAFD, part of the Deletion policy page, states: Renominations: After a deletion...
Click to read more »WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the repeated nominations seem to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nominations indicates that a further nomination will not be productive – see WP:DELAFD which states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in...
Click to read more »WP:DELAFD cited above. Roches (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy Keep per Andrew D. above: A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It...
Click to read more »guideline.) Deletion discussions must be guideline-based (see, for example, WP:DELAFD). So, if you think we should not have these redirects, please find a guideline...
Click to read more »which was nominated by the same editor, closed just 13 days ago. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Please see WP:DELAFD for existing policy on renominations, which should be adequate. For this...
Click to read more »It's only a few days since the previous AfD was closed as a Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »previous nomination which was "keep". It is therefore disruptive per WP:DELAFD. Such repeat nominations, made without the due diligence of WP:BEFORE, are...
Click to read more »means that all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD). Seven nominations...
Click to read more »that this has been at AfD before when the result was a clear keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »closed last week and which is still under further discussion at DRV. WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »February 2017 (UTC) Speedy Keep As way too soon for another nomination per WP:DELAFD - "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favour of keeping...
Click to read more »Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:POINT and WP:DELAFD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Strange, I see only one WP:POINT...
Click to read more »discusion closures are not based upon straw poll forms of voting. See WP:DELAFD: "These processes are not decided through a head count". The identical copy/paste...
Click to read more »Comics". The real issue here is that this is the fourth nomination and so WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »been nominated before and was kept, this seems to be a clear case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »the nominator can't be bothered to provide a link. Please note that WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »split it.Djflem (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD which states "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally...
Click to read more »Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating...
Click to read more »August 2021 (UTC) Keep Another vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD as no valid reasons to delete are provided. If the list is short, then this...
Click to read more »and was a clear Keep. This is therefore a disruptive nomination per WP:DELAFD which explains that it's "disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the...
Click to read more »should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:DELAFD: "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »and that nothing has changed. The nomination is therefore contrary to WP:DELAFD which states that " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in...
Click to read more »may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Same shorter at WP:DELAFD.— Racconish Tk 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC) So WP:BLPDEL wasn't relevant...
Click to read more »case - with a finding that we should have no more such nominations per WP:DELAFD. Warden (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Not that anyone cares at this...
Click to read more »RAJU(T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Keep The renomination is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »clearly expanding and changing. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and none of these support deletion...
Click to read more »article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting. Nakon 03:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) AfDs for this article:...
Click to read more »12 December 2020 (UTC) Keep This is a disruptive re-nomination per WP:DELAFD, being a pointy spinoff from the current RfA. The nomination's claim that...
Click to read more »7 November 2019 (UTC) Keep The nomination is obviously improper per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Speedy Keep - WP:DELAFD no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD. Most of what Miss...
Click to read more »result was Keep and this nomination presents no new argument or evidence. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »ordinary editing not deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »result was Keep both times. Starting a third discussion is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »don't need is a repeat nomination, one day after discussion has closed. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »nomination itself talks of merger. AFD is therefore inappropriate. Note also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »re-nominated one day after the close of the previous AfD, in violation of WP:DELAFD, and should be speedily closed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018...
Click to read more »It's only a few days since the previous AfD was closed as a Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »resulted in Keep so this renomination seems to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, especially as it seems to be mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Too large" is not...
Click to read more »"important" to the world to be considered notable. A direct quotation from WP:DELAFD, AfD processes "are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »but is still here, this is an obvious case of WP:NOTAGAIN contrary to WP:DELAFD: " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious WP:DELAFD: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly...
Click to read more »previous AFD participants. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Keep WP:DELAFD vexatious renomination Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »reason to Delete. — HipLibrarianship talk 03:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Keep WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »resulted in Keep so this renomination seems to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, especially as it seems to be mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Too large" is not...
Click to read more »which was nominated by the same editor, closed just 13 days ago. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »we note in that previous discussion is that the outcome was Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »false and, as this is a repeat nomination, it seems to be vexatious per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Keep. Most of the content...
Click to read more »traits in the various portrayals. So, the usual policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53...
Click to read more »expert so to speak, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC) WP:DELAFD, part of the Deletion policy page, states: Renominations: After a deletion...
Click to read more »discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »passes WP:GNG. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:DELAFD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SK; &c. And for more essays see WP:NOTCLEANUP;...
Click to read more »Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives. See also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination has allowed "a reasonable amount of time to pass" as per WP:DELAFD before renomination. I have no opinion on the article itself, but I feel...
Click to read more »RAJU(T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Keep The renomination is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »to change this and so it's just a case of WP:KEEPLISTING contrary to WP:DELAFD, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »at AfD. As the nomination is mostly personal bias per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »nominations indicates that a further nomination will not be productive – see WP:DELAFD which states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in...
Click to read more »WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the repeated nominations seem to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »Folengo, which demonstrates that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and that WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »31 October 2019 (UTC) Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Did you take a look at the...
Click to read more »17:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) The relevant bit of the deletion policy is WP:DELAFD, which basically says that an article can be deleted if editors reach consensus...
Click to read more »argumentation at that time, it is too soon to start it all over again. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Keep- This is absurd and in violation of WP:DELAFD. At the previous Afd for the article which closed not more than a month...
Click to read more »"KEEP". This is therefore a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. As the nomination hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, we needn't waste our time...
Click to read more »November 2019 (UTC) Keep Even thought the last close was no consensus keep. WP:DELAFD My comments have not changed from two weeks ago. Passes WP:Product a specific...
Click to read more »previous comments at one of the other three AfDs. One just ended Dec 19. WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »recent result of Keep, this immediate renomination is disruptive per WP:DELAFD. There is no case for deletion because this is obviously a spinoff from...
Click to read more »clear evidence of notability. The nomination is a plain violation of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »(actually two) that meets NCORP and one that you're happy to defend. I mean WP:DELAFD policy says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) Keep Seems to be a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. Please listen. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »result, the nominator should be warned not to repeat this disruption per WP:DELAFD which states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the...
Click to read more »fails to address any of the points made so recently. See WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »which is a different question than whether to delete it - please look at WP:DELAFD (and pages linked from there) which is the relevant guide for deletion discussions...
Click to read more »may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Same shorter at WP:DELAFD.— Racconish Tk 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC) So WP:BLPDEL wasn't relevant...
Click to read more »discussion is procedurally improper. For further confirmation of this, see WP:DELAFD, "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute...
Click to read more »previous nomination which was "keep". It is therefore disruptive per WP:DELAFD. Such repeat nominations, made without the due diligence of WP:BEFORE, are...
Click to read more »article, but to renom an article two months after a snow keep is against WP:DELAFD. I suggest a snow close.Martin451 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Sounds appropriate...
Click to read more »November 2019 (UTC) Keep AfD closed exactly three days ago. Refer to WP:DELAFD WP:DISRUPTIVE renomination. Once notable always notable WP:NTEMP WP:PRESERVE...
Click to read more »only 5 weeks since this was a clear keep so this seems to be case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting...
Click to read more »WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »nomination just repeats the previous nomination and so is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »inclusion. -- Kheider (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »Folengo, which demonstrates that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and that WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope...
Click to read more »Keep We already had a nomination this year and the result was Keep. WP:DELAFD states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of...
Click to read more »21:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) That's not correct. WP:AFD mentions WP:BEFORE; WP:DELAFD directs editors to "Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process...
Click to read more »nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". WP:DELAFD is an existing policy and it seems quite...
Click to read more »nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". WP:DELAFD is an existing policy and it seems quite...
Click to read more »usually determinative for consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) WP:DELAFD says pointblank "These processes are not decided through a head count" and...
Click to read more »(UTC) I was the closing administrator. Wikipedia policy as given at WP:DELAFD is that a AfD that would otherwise close as non-consensus when the person...
Click to read more »guideline pages which make the same point, such as WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »and policies and guidelines are littered with references to this, e.g. WP:DELAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »policy which forbids frivolous renominations like that. And there is: WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »done, the discussion was closed early, before the period specified by WP:DELAFD, "discussion lasts at least seven full days". A unilateral move was made...
Click to read more »using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. WP:DELAFD: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »AfD again hoping for a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but I would have you read WP:DELAFD first. This was a clear snow keep where no other result was possible. Lightburst...
Click to read more »--Jayron32 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Have you also read the policy at WP:DELAFD (linked to from the deletion notice currently in place at the top of the...
Click to read more »AFD discussions and other discussions should go about, and even per WP:DELAFD, that depends on how this discussion would end up as. This project had been...
Click to read more »policy which forbids frivolous renominations like that. And there is: WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »usually determinative for consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) WP:DELAFD says pointblank "These processes are not decided through a head count" and...
Click to read more »AfD again hoping for a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but I would have you read WP:DELAFD first. This was a clear snow keep where no other result was possible. Lightburst...
Click to read more »Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly." (WP:DELAFD) It's way too soon. Otherwise, you could have serial nominations by different...
Click to read more »(UTC) I was the closing administrator. Wikipedia policy as given at WP:DELAFD is that a AfD that would otherwise close as non-consensus when the person...
Click to read more »done, the discussion was closed early, before the period specified by WP:DELAFD, "discussion lasts at least seven full days". A unilateral move was made...
Click to read more »guideline pages which make the same point, such as WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting...
Click to read more »taken to mean you were presenting it as your own. Please have a look at WP:DELAFD (and/or WP:REPEAT) - this is a discussion, not a counted vote, so repeating...
Click to read more »using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. WP:DELAFD: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »and policies and guidelines are littered with references to this, e.g. WP:DELAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are...
Click to read more »participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy (WP:DELAFD). The goal is to reach consensus through mutual understanding of the applicable...
Click to read more »(Suufi) (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Procedural keep per WP:DELAFD. "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly...
Click to read more »once as Renominations in such a manner may be considered disruption. WP:DELAFD Muneebll (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Delete Fails to meet Wikipedia's...
Click to read more »taken to mean you were presenting it as your own. Please have a look at WP:DELAFD (and/or WP:REPEAT) - this is a discussion, not a counted vote, so repeating...
Click to read more »participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy (WP:DELAFD). The goal is to reach consensus through mutual understanding of the applicable...
Click to read more »AFD discussions and other discussions should go about, and even per WP:DELAFD, that depends on how this discussion would end up as. This project had been...
Click to read more »