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)[reply]
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. FrankAnchor02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SportingFlyerT·C09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is going to be a massive "endorse", so at first I thought it needless for me to pile on, but I see that there are three limbs to the nominator's argument and in a satisfactory DRV, all three should be answered here. The nominator deserves a full explanation. I'll attempt that as follows:1) Imagine if we did restart the AfD or reset the count after a major edit. What would happen then? Well, people who didn't want their article deleted could keep doing major rewrites, and they would. For that reason, we ask AfD participants not to evaluate the article as it currently is, but rather to decide whether there should be a separate article with this title. A "delete" or "merge" is understood to mean "no article with this title should exist". So the community will support OwenX on the first limb.2) Imagine if we didn't close a discussion until all the questions were answered. What would happen then? Well, people who didn't want their article deleted could keep asking questions, and they would. For that reason, we don't require AfD participants to answer questions. So the community will support OwenX on the second limb.3) Closes should be honest, truthful, and use natural language. Sometimes a discussion doesn't reach a slam dunk obvious conclusion but rather, the closer needs to use their judgement to evaluate what the community is saying. In such cases closers use more hesitant words: they say things like "seems" or "lean" or "tend" or "on balance". This is normal. We can't wait for crystal clear, slam dunk consensus to emerge because the sheer volume of work AfD has to do precludes that; each discussion only gets a certain amount of community attention. This was a judgement call and the wording rightly reflects that. So the community will support OwenX on the third limb.I hope this helps and suffices to fully answer your objections.—S MarshallT/C10:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was appropriate. I don't even know what the unanswered questions from the discussion were or why they needed to be answered before the AfD was closed. If editors still believe we need a separate article titled Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, they can work on it in draftspace until it is an improvement over the corresponding section of Chinese Civil War. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
