- Australian Football International (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
To summarise:
- Keep !voters were unable to provide policy-based rationales or post sources proving the article met WP:GNG, which Britishfinance's close failed to take into account. (DRVPURPOSE 1)
- Melcous !voted "weak keep" as a GNG pass in the first AfD (closed as NC) and added quite a few sources. I removed a couple of unreliable ones and gave a detailed rationale in the second nomination statement explaining why the remaining sources don't result in a GNG pass. She reposted her previous reasoning with little consideration of the nomination statement, and pointed out the existence of articles on Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup as another reason to keep (true, but not relevant to notability as organisations do not inherit notability from events/products they are associated with).
- Bookscale !voted "weak keep" said there was "enough to just meet GNG" but did not identify any sources to support this.
- 4meter4 added no reasoning to previous participants' contributions.
- J947 relisted the discussion twice, recognising no keep !voters had provided any substantial sources.
- The close was a WP:BADNAC (2), considering the lack of substantial keep !votes and Barkeep49's delete !vote that edit-conflicted with the close.
- If the !vote had come just one minute earlier, the tally would have been only 3–2 in favour of keep, with two of the keep !votes having no substantive reasoning of their own. (Not to say AfDs are decided by tallies, merely that this is a closer call than the close supposes and should be closed by an admin).
- Britishfinance admitted they would have found no consensus if Barkeep's !vote stood, and has also acknowledged the discussion was a "borderline case".
This close should either be overturned to no consensus, reclosed by an admin, or reopened to allow Barkeep's !vote to be posted and further discussion to take place (or some combination of the three). – Teratix ₵ 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has spent 6 continual weeks at AfD without a single Delete !vote (nominated twice in short succession, and then relisted twice each time by the nom).
- All !votes were Keep or Weak Keep, and they explicitly acknowledged that their !vote took in the borderline nature of the AfD (Per the talk page discussion above, WP:BASIC does allow them to consider non-trivial mentions is related RS as contributing to GNG).
- Per the AfD talk page discussion, I mused on an NC close, but felt it would be too much of a WP:SUPERVOTE given there was no single Delete in the 6 weeks (combined) at AfD, and explicit consideration by the Keeps on the nature of their !vote.
- Barkeep49 did not !vote in any of the AfDs, and to re-open for them to add a Delete !vote post-closing, I think we would at least need the agreement of the other participants: 4meter4, Bookscale, and Melcous as a courtesy; however, I was waiting for them to reply on the Talk page.
- I am not sure what the benefit of trying to re-open this AfD is given there is no consensus to Delete it, and it has been re-nominated twice in succession? I suggested to the nom that they should have opted for a merge post the 1st re-list, but their response on the talk page indicated that they are not being objective with regard to this topic/AfD.
- Hope that helps explain, thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:BASIC applies to people, not organisations; organisations are covered by WP:NCORP, which is stricter and I believe does not allow the "combine coverage from multiple independent sources" defence
- To not allow Barkeep to add a !vote you admitted would change the outcome of the discussion and would have been posted mere seconds or minutes after your close seems extremely unfair (and speaks volumes as to the fragility of the supposed keep consensus if one !vote was sufficient to sway the decision). – Teratix ₵ 14:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't "not allow Barkeep49 add a !vote" - per the talk page, I made it clear to Barkeep49 that I had misread them as implying they were going to "close" the AfD as a Delete (which I would not have really agreed with on the basis of a SUPERVOTE). Nobody is trying to be "unfair" with you here; you have engaged the community at AfD for 6 weeks with no support to Delete(not one !vote), and !votes from at least one experienced AfD participant, who are fully aware of the borderline nature of the case. Britishfinance (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Endorse Even if the delete !vote had been allowed, it would have been closed as no consensus. This is a complete waste of time. We have already wasted six weeks on this. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, DRVs aren't closed early unless nominations are clearly in bad faith, the nominator withdraws the nomination, or the closer decides they completely blew it. WilyD 16:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - sure, a weak keep might've been appropriate, but it's been at AfD for six weeks; an immediate renomination is would be getting tendentious, so - fine. Sources are ... weak, but not so weak that a closer can substitute their own judgement; if most people are happy enough with them, then they're adequate. I'm not super-sympathetic that after six weeks across two AfDs, someone decided to chuck in a comment but found it was already closed (and really, I see no evidence their !vote would've meaningfully changed the outcome. Barkeep doesn't appear to have prepared some in depth analysis that would've tilted far away from a headcount on an article with plausible but not slam dunk sources.) WilyD 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closure as Keep. This is a clear case of bludgeoning the deletion process by the nominator/appellant. After one AFD didn't succeed, another was submitted, and that one also didn't succeed. The apparent purpose of this appeal is to change the result to No Consensus to permit a third AFD earlier. There isn't an error by the closer that warrants continuing to try to get the article deleted. Just leave it alone. This isn't WP:AN, but a topic-ban on the nominator from deletion discussions of this article (just this article) may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Not a single user has !voted delete over six weeks and two AfDs, and Barkeep49's vote doesn't change the outcome. This DRV smacks of trying to get the article deleted on a technicality as opposed to any sort of error by the closer, a non-admin who made a very easy close. I'm in the "enough is enough" crowd. SportingFlyer T·C 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was pinged, either have it overturned to no consensus or kept as is. Either way it doesn't really matter. I relisted it in hope that the 'keep' !voters would expand upon their vote and react to Teratix's concerns, as that is good practice. J947 (c), at 22:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
