Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagreed with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by leaving a request to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their response to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the closer. You will see that they also made factual error in their response in addition to the problems I have already pointed out.

1) In the case of the IP editor, the closer made the claim in their response to me giving them a heads up about this IP that: Consensus is judged by weight of argument, not by who makes the arguments. and But someone making a coherent RfD argument is prima facie evidence that they have some level of experience with how RfD works. Well, without rehashing that argument, I will say this - that IP editor never made any coherent arguments. In fact, they made no arguments at all. They simply wrote a paragraph carrying on about me reverting on another page, and added a comment to agree with the OP. So, you see that assessment resulted in factual error, and is evidence the closer read it incorrectly.

2) Here, you will see the judgement of evidence is dubious by the closer; They presented evidence of 2,000 usages of it to mean list inclusion. You presented evidence of 44,000 usages of a related but different term to mean notability. where you notice that overwhelming evidence is rejected because of its relevance and then here we notice completely subjective and fabricated (not to mention flimsy) "evidence" is accepted as relevant: This is a projectspace redirect, so the audience is editors, not readers. Where !voters (a subset of editors) expect a shortcut to point is relevant.

3) Closer admits mistakes were made (even if not in my favor). However, they say they were prepared to reopen, but saw no other way to close. This strongly suggests to me the only possible outcome they could see was closing the discussion one way or the other. The fact they could not see an alternative of reopening the discussion to let it run some more is indicative of poor closing insight. I do not have any closing experience, but if it were me, and the last comment were by a somewhat suspect IP editor, I would not have said to myself, "ok, that cinches it!", I would have waited for at least one more experienced editor to comment.

Overturn and propose closer reverse changes and reopen discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I will mostly let my reply to Huggums' initial close challenge speak for itself. ("Challenge" is the standard term here, by the way, Huggums, not me being combative or taking things personally.) But to briefly summarize: This was numerically 4 to 1 with 1 neutral; it had been open for 6 weeks; and 2 weeks had passed since its second relist. An exceptionally strong argument would have needed to have been made to overcome the numerical strength of the disambiguate contingent, and none was. Finally, Huggums537, it is a personal attack to refer to IP78 in the manner that you are. You have presented literally no evidence of wrongdoing on their part, and I have shown you that their /24 IP range has been active in projectspace for two years. Please reword or strike your characterization of them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will not reword anything. You prove absolutely nothing that lends credit to the IP, and admit yourself that you made your decision based on a "maybe"; Is it the same person? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't even count the fact that you counted arguments they never even made, unless you were just counting their "numerical strength", as you suggest, and "cinched it" with an IP of half a dozen edits that you admit "maybe" has credibility. Huggums537 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said all I have to say about my close, and my concerns here are rather about your conduct, I will reply on your talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]