Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 22
I believe the administrator wrongfully considered that a consensus had been reached. Below are the reasons:
1. There were major edits after the first few opinions were put forward, which could nullify the reasons supporting a merge, redirect or draftification.
2. Some of the questions raised during the AfD discussion are yet to be answered, let alone reach a consensus.
3. The administrator used the words "seems" and "lean" in the explanation, which indicated that the current discussion could not reach a clear conclusion. So, further discussion might be needed.
GoldWitness (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as a reasonable outcome. No solid case was made for why this needed to be a separate article. Star Mississippi 01:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse well reasoned close. There was consensus that there should not be a standalone article. With no consensus on how the article should be handled (delete, merge, redirect), OwenX selected the option that allows for the most editorial flexibility moving forward. Frank Anchor 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. After one relist with some, but not much, additional comment, it makes sense to "bite the bullet" and assess consensus from the discussion as it stands. I agree with Owen× that a rough consensus exists not have a separate article. Exactly where and what to merge are less clear, but nothing prevents continuing discussion on the appropriate article talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse There was clearly not a consensus to keep the article at the point of the close, it was actually a fairly well attended discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per others. It's normal that there are some unanswered questions and for AfDs not to have a completely clear outcome. Nothing is ever perfect. The standard is reasonableness.—Alalch E. 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - It is often sufficient for the closer to find a rough consensus rather than going through additional relists to try to get a better consensus that might not be there. This was such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)