291:- I concur with Hobit's analysis, but, in my opinion, it does not require an Overturn. There are reasons to keep, and reasons to delete. We at DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing whether the closer made a reasonable judgment call. The closer concluded that the Delete and Redirect arguments were stronger, and had slightly more !votes. So the close should be left standing, as a judgment call by the closer, and closers should exercise judgment;.
186:
impression there was more delete votes than there was) ; I think there was some "I do not like" in one delete argument and while I see that those arguing for delete were slightly higher in number, I think there was a very compelling explanation of why BLP1E does not apply that nobody arguing to delete addressed that = I am saying the "keep" crowd presented a more policy-driven argument, even if they were in slight minority.
350:. I have no quarrel with Sandstein's analytical framework – assessing whether there was a consensus to "not keep" and then closing in favor of the ATD – but I don't think the discussion quite amounts to any sort of consensus at all. Discounting a duplicate !vote, we have 5 !votes to delete/redirect/merge and 3 !votes to keep. Since the closer
354:
that there were "reasonable arguments on both sides", we're left to close on the numbers, and 5–3 is a rather slender reed to rest a consensus on. In my view, a closure along the lines of "no consensus at the moment; feel free to discuss a possible merger on the talk page" would have better reflected
308:
This is my first time here, so forgive me if I got this wrong: I assume we all agree we're not reassessing the AfD, we're assessing if it was correct to say there was consensus. The closer didn't say the delete and redirect arguments were stronger, they said there was "consensus" and that is where I
213:
Claims that BLP1E doesn't apply are reasonable. In particular, evidence was given that he had significant (if local) coverage before the event. And it's reasonable to claim that someone who is a "regular pundit on Fox News", has run for political office, and is chair of a controversial group that's
402:
I'm sort of stunned the number of those participating in this DRV would consider that AfD to be a no consensus when a majority of participants thought BLP1E applied and made clear arguments to that effect. The argument the keep voters rebutted the other !votes as well is stunning as most of those
376:
that there were "reasonable arguments on both sides", I agree with
Extraordinary Writ that when closing on the numbers 5–3 (after taking into account that one editor voted twice in first supporting a redirect and then supporting deletion), is an insufficient consensus to close as "redirect" or
185:
However, I request a review primarily because I think there was no consensus and I therefore disagree with the conclusion that consensus was reached for any outcome. Secondary to that, I think it is unfair that someone voted twice differently (maybe not in opposite directions, but giving the
78:. Folks here disagree on how the arguments in the AfD (e.g BLP1E and GNG) should have been weighted and whether they suffice to justify the "redirect" closure. Here at deletion review it's almost evenly split and nobody's arguments are
236:
Basically the keep arguments did a solid job of rebutting the the delete and redirect ones. Given the numbers (which were nearly equal) and strength or arguments, it feels like the only way it could be closed is NC.
327:
And I felt the keep arguments were stronger. In any case, both sets were reasonable and I believe there isn't a clear strength-of-arguement or enough numbers to claim there is a consensus. Thus my !vote above.
181:
First I should declare I wrote the article and I also note this was a difficult decision and I acknowledge the good faith decision by the closing admin and the careful explanation provided when I asked about it.
377:"delete". I agree with Hobit's assessment of the strengths of the arguments and conclusion that the "keep" participants' arguments were stronger. The "keep" participants made a strong case that
313:, which is the opposite of what happened in the AfD, the contributors to the discussion really made opposite arguments, and did not convince each other or agree.
48:
34:
224:
164:
43:
373:
351:
227:
221:
192:
So primary request: it be considered "no consensus" and secondary point that some delete votes should have been disregarded or discounted.
421:
39:
152:
21:
372:
There were five editors who supported "delete, redirect, or merge" and three editors who supported "keep". As the closer
360:
173:
218:
437:
296:
102:
17:
413:
356:
87:
426:
394:
364:
337:
322:
300:
283:
266:
246:
201:
91:
292:
223:
which has 8 short paragraphs on him at the national level, and brief mentions in international news
189:
If the philosophy on
Knowledge is "When in doubt, don't delete", was there really no doubt here?
408:
386:
279:
83:
318:
197:
390:
262:
378:
333:
242:
122:
82:
stronger than the others. The close is thus kept, for a lack of consensus to overturn it.
382:
275:
314:
193:
258:
210:
There were two basic arguments for deletion and/or redirection: GNG and BLP1E.
329:
238:
118:
70:
253:
I would have closed as delete but I don't think we're going to end up there;
309:
think an error was made. The normal
English meaning of consensus is
217:
Claims that the GNG is met are reasonable. With sources like:
159:
145:
137:
129:
229:, claims that the GNG is met can't be ignored.
8:
274:Per Hobit's analysis, which he beat me to.
101:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
7:
440:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
214:in the news isn't "low profile".
436:The above is an archive of the
1:
220:(local but purely on him),
463:
323:03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
301:03:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
284:19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
267:12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
247:04:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
202:18:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
427:21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
395:07:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
370:Overturn to no consensus.
365:06:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
338:20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
92:16:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
443:Please do not modify it.
381:does not apply and that
345:Overturn to no consensus
208:overturn to no consensus
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
257:closure as redirect.
403:votes came in late,
105:of the page above.
357:Extraordinary Writ
450:
449:
407:the keep !votes.
349:
348:<involved: -->
311:general agreement
307:
306:<involved: -->
454:
445:
424:
416:
355:the discussion.
347:
305:
176:
171:
162:
148:
140:
132:
110:
64:
53:
33:
462:
461:
457:
456:
455:
453:
452:
451:
441:
438:deletion review
420:
412:
293:Robert McClenon
172:
170:
167:
158:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
103:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
460:
458:
448:
447:
432:
431:
430:
429:
397:
385:has been met.
367:
342:
341:
340:
325:
286:
272:Overturn to NC
269:
250:
249:
233:
232:
231:
230:
215:
179:
178:
168:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
459:
446:
444:
439:
434:
433:
428:
425:
423:
417:
415:
410:
409:SportingFlyer
406:
401:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
375:
371:
368:
366:
362:
358:
353:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
235:
234:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
211:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
190:
187:
183:
175:
166:
161:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
84:Jo-Jo Eumerus
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:28 March 2022
57:
50:
49:2022 March 29
45:
41:
36:
35:2022 March 27
23:
19:
442:
435:
419:
411:
404:
399:
369:
344:
310:
288:
271:
254:
207:
191:
188:
184:
180:
107:
100:
79:
76:No consensus
75:
69:
58:
119:BJ Dichter
71:BJ Dichter
44:2022 March
379:WP:BLP1E
276:Jclemens
20: |
400:Endorse
315:CT55555
289:Endorse
255:endorse
194:CT55555
174:restore
138:history
80:clearly
387:Cunard
383:WP:GNG
352:agreed
259:Stifle
405:after
330:Hobit
239:Hobit
160:watch
153:links
52:: -->
16:<
391:talk
374:said
361:talk
334:talk
319:talk
297:talk
280:talk
263:talk
243:talk
198:talk
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
88:talk
32:<
165:XfD
163:) (
22:Log
393:)
363:)
336:)
321:)
299:)
282:)
265:)
245:)
226:,
200:)
90:)
74:–
42::
422:C
418:·
414:T
389:(
359:(
332:(
317:(
295:(
278:(
261:(
241:(
196:(
177:)
169:|
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.