296:- The conclusion is a reasonable close from the discussion, but, in view of the length that it was open, and that it isn't obvious on its face what the close should be, and so requires judgment by the closer, the closer should have explained why they closed it as Delete. Adequate close, wrong explanation (none).
246:
argument. They argue that it is among the "most significant bus routes", that there would be a "noisy uproar and protests" if the bus route were cancelled, that the bus route has attracted long queues of riders, etc. A few links to sources were provided towards the end of the discussion, but none of
375:
with a caveat. Delete was the correct result based on the discussion and the weight of the arguments. However, the best result here would be a selective merge/redirect to the the list of bus routes in
Melbourne, as the nominator discussed in one of their responses. Hopefully we can keep the sourced
267:
I can fully understand how the closing admin didn't see this as keep, SW did a fine job of arguing that above. But as he's reminded the nom here about good practices, so too should he keep in mind that when closing against the majority in a discussion it's a darn fine idea to leave something of a
238:, if you had asked for clarification on my talk page before starting a DRV, I would have happily provided an explanation of how I came to the conclusion I did. For future reference, this is highly encouraged (see step 1 of DRV instructions above). As I'm sure we're all aware,
213:- it looks to me that either delete or no consensus would have been justifiable. I don't see that the closing administrator has done anything wrong here. I certainly don't see any reason for throwing the last vote on the discard pile just because it came late in the process.
276:. Perhaps the closer felt that there was nothing to merge, but then we don't know that because it wasn't in the discussion (the only argument that addressed merging was in favor of doing so) and the closer didn't address the issue in the close...
190:
Some of that comment was incorrect (The Age is *not* a "local" source, it is one of
Australia's largest metropolitan newspapers - the local source would be the local area paper from the particular part of Melbourne where the route
176:
I'm asking for this to be reviewed as a matter of process as I don't think one can properly say there was a consensus in favour of deleting this article, at worst it was no consensus and should have been kept for that reason:
313:. Is it possible to temporarily restore the page while the DRV is open? So that those of us mere mortals who are non-admins can look at it and see what kind of sources it had at the time of the AfD? Thanks,
187:
The third time the AfD was left open to gauge better consensus, only one !vote was added which occurred only very shortly before the AfD was closed and there wasn't really a chance to respond to that
159:
242:
is not about counting votes, it's about assessing the quality of arguments with respect to WP policy. In this particular case, the arguments to keep mostly boiled down to an
48:
34:
147:
43:
184:
Most of the discussion was in favour (at least nominally) of keeping, including from myself who changed their view after some sources were put forward.
168:
247:
them mentioned the bus route more than a single time. Therefore, I saw no indication of a consensus that the topic has sufficient sources to pass
251:
at this time. For me, this significantly reduced the quality of the arguments to keep the article, and therefore I found consensus to delete.
390:
39:
268:
justification rather than wait to be asked. That said, there is a clear merge target and that's a more reasonable outcome per
21:
117:
194:
It appears the closer has relied heavily on that last comment as gauging consensus, and I don't think that is right.
406:
301:
97:
17:
395:
382:
363:
347:
322:
305:
288:
262:
226:
203:
113:
86:
70:
199:
358:
297:
257:
239:
377:
329:
269:
243:
235:
195:
353:
343:
333:
318:
284:
273:
252:
220:
77:
248:
339:
314:
280:
214:
338:
Would either of you be willing to do the temp undeleted requested?
154:
140:
132:
124:
8:
96:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
7:
409:of the page listed in the heading.
181:This AfD was left open for 3 weeks
28:
405:The above is an archive of the
306:18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
289:01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
263:16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
227:11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
204:10:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
74:– "Delete" closure endorsed.
396:09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
364:05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
348:03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
323:06:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
87:21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
432:
232:Comment from closing admin
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
412:Please do not modify it.
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
114:Melbourne bus route 601
71:Melbourne bus route 601
352:Temporarily restored.
376:information there.
100:of the page above.
419:
418:
278:overturn to merge
240:judging consensus
85:
59:29 September 2020
49:2020 September 30
35:2020 September 28
423:
414:
393:
385:
361:
356:
337:
260:
255:
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
431:
430:
426:
425:
424:
422:
421:
420:
410:
407:deletion review
389:
381:
359:
354:
327:
298:Robert McClenon
258:
253:
225:
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
429:
427:
417:
416:
401:
400:
399:
398:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
308:
291:
265:
229:
219:
207:
206:
192:
188:
185:
182:
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
61:
56:
47:
44:2020 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
428:
415:
413:
408:
403:
402:
397:
394:
392:
386:
384:
379:
378:SportingFlyer
374:
371:
365:
362:
357:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
335:
331:
330:Jo-Jo Eumerus
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
290:
286:
282:
279:
275:
271:
266:
264:
261:
256:
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
223:
218:
217:
212:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
183:
180:
179:
178:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
411:
404:
388:
380:
372:
310:
294:Weak Endorse
293:
277:
231:
221:
215:
210:
175:
102:
95:
79:
69:
58:
355:‑Scottywong
270:WP:PRESERVE
254:‑Scottywong
236:Deus et lex
196:Deus et lex
334:Scottywong
244:WP:ILIKEIT
80:Sandstein
274:WP:ATD-M
20: |
373:Endorse
311:Comment
211:Endorse
169:restore
133:history
249:WP:GNG
360:| ||
340:Hobit
315:Nsk92
281:Hobit
259:| ||
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
344:talk
332:and
319:talk
302:talk
285:talk
272:and
216:Reyk
200:talk
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
222:YO!
191:is.
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
346:)
321:)
304:)
287:)
234:-
202:)
42::
391:C
387:·
383:T
342:(
336::
328:@
317:(
300:(
283:(
198:(
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.