Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 30

30 September 2015

Piggate

Piggate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to WP:GNG. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and on my talk page, I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion.  Sandstein  08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the redirect and merge for now we have 50-22 in favour of keeping. Include them and it is still 50-39 majority in favour of keeping, if you presume all redirect/merge = deletion. This is overwhelming for such a contentious issue. "No consensus" is not acceptable for such a situation, especially given it is already encouraging the vocal minority opposed to this article to start further disruptive "discussions" ALREADY AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Far too many of the keep votes (especially from a suspicious amount of accounts with very few edits) were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ARTICLES-ON-OTHER-SCANDALS-EXIST type. Even if we ignore that problem, 50 v 39 is "No Consensus" every day of the week. I would be very surprised if any other administrator would have closed it differently; I certainly wouldn't have. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What is consensus, then? 100%? AusLondonder (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, but in a contentious discussion 56% certainly doesn't cut it, even if we count all the dubious Keeps. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Relist, for the reason that the case has evolved considerably since it was initially listed for discussion. A lot of the delete comments came in early on, before Cameron had even commented on the issue. --ERAGON (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - the point is quite rightly made that the lasting notability is unclear, and that people saying it will or it won't are all making wild guesses. In general, immediately dragging articles to AfD which obviously meet WP:N but have unclear (either way) long lasting significance is a jackass move, for which I believe the essay WP:TROUT was written for. Ditto participating in them, except perhaps to argue close with no outcome. Give it three or six months, when it's clearer, and figure out what to do when it's more than pointless grandstanding. WilyD 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Really, a deletion review to consider whether "no consensus" should have been "keep"? The default outcome is keep where there is no consensus, so it really doesn't matter. Let's move on and not waste time. WJBscribe (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - Per the nom, reviewing the deletion discussion it seemed clear to me that a super majority (i.e. >66%) of respondents favored keep. I was a little confused when the closer chose no consensus using "headcount" as the chief rationale. That said, the actual "headcount" was subject to interpretation, largely due to some participants making "keep/merge" or "delete/merge" votes rather than pure "delete" or "keep" votes. The closer chose to interpret "keep/merge" and "delete/merge" votes in a way I think was wrong. That said, Deletion Reviews are only really called for when there's an obvious misapplication or misinterpretation of policy. That is not the case here. Additionly, as pointed out by WJBscribe and the closer, this discussion is mostly academic. NickCT (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)