The result was no consensus. There's a small number of good-quality, policy-oriented contributions below, and sadly a lot of rather rubbish ones. Taking the good ones, this is a good old-fashioned debate over whether the sourcing meets the requirements under our notability guidelines, or if this has just been ref bombed to death. There is no agreement amongst established editors on this subject, and no argument was sufficiently proven or disproven to form a consensus in the absence of agreement.
Two procedural notes: the canvassing in this debate is really poor, and while DGG is smart enough to see through it, it leaves a cloud over the debate as a whole. Consider this the strongest possible admonishment for the individual who canvassed. Secondly, due to the narrow nature of the no consensus and the potential flaws procedurally in this discussion, I am explicitly noting that this can be renominated for AfD by any interested editor in a shorter period of time than may have previously been expected. Further, I strongly urge anyone who comes along to AFD4 (if it happens) and complains about the frequency or quantity of AfDs to be rebuked by participants, for not focusing on the content of the article. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)