Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/By Common Consent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, after much-extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By Common Consent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:BEFORE source searches, including several custom searches, it appears that this blog fails WP:WEBCRIT. Other than this source, source searches are providing passing mentions about what people have written on the blog, and name checks, but no additional significant coverage about the blog itself has been found. Multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required to qualify notability, not just one. Additionally, the many primary sources in the article do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a LOT of cruft in the article, but I feel coverage such as [1] to be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a well written/structured article, but it gets good mention in New York Times, Steve Evans gets to write about his blog in The Washington Post, also noted in Chicago Tribune. The list goes on. What is more, is that I can see quality U.S. media outlets consider this blog to be a quotable source on Mormon topics. This passes WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Britishfinance. This is a notable blog on the topic of the LDS church. SJK (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.