I made substantial improvements (×4 size, more sources, create source eval table) to the article, but the closer closed the discussion quickly before any additional reply was made (post-article-improvement), and before it re-entered the backlog for AfD regulars to see. So there was no consensus and no quorum.
More importantly, the closure message did not mention any policy or guideline rather treated the situation only as a "tiring discussion". He stated that was a no consensus, but he didn't set the outcome to that, because some people did not want the article kept. The outcome should've been "no consensus", per a modicum of procedure. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A difficult close for Ritchie333, but in spite of all of the walls of text in the AfD, I think they did a commendable job with the close. I think no consensus would have been a possible option, but a larger consensus of !voters wanted the article not kept, and Ritchie333 clearly weighted the votes as well based on argument. Furthermore, most (if not all?) of the sources presented and used to improve the article were discussed in the AfD, so it's not a situation where sources which clearly demonstrate GNG have been ignored. SportingFlyerT·C 10:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(non-controversial fact clarification) The sole comment to my source table was the PA: I doubt your evaluation of the sources based on your inability even to accurately identify what they are or who they come from, referring to a single source out of ten, where I forgot to mention the book it came from. Regardless, I used additional sources in my final article, namely the think tank report.
Ritchie333 clearly weighted the votes as well based on argument
He only stated: I see a mixture of those wanting to keep, merge or delete the article - however, many of the rationales were refuted. It is an unclear, false balance reason which makes no reference to policy and the notability of the subject. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the most exhausting AfD I've participated in in my memory, and I derive little satisfaction in the fact that it has been closed the best it could be. Of course, I am involved here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved) for the simple reason that the closing statement included the language This suggests a "no consensus" close, but I am reluctant to read that as a the consensus as it retains the full article, which comes off as a WP:SUPERVOTE. FrankAnchor 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it comes off as a supervote as all, and even the nom didn't allege it was a supervote. It tells me that the closer considered no consensus due to the diversity of opinion, but then determined there was a consensus not to keep this article, and then selected merge from the options of merge versus delete, not that no consensus was the only correct option to close the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's selective quoting, I then went on to say "and there are a significant proportion of editors that explicitly didn't want that."; in other words I was determining that through views expressed through editors at the debate, including Alpha3031, GorillaWarfare, S0091 and SmallJars. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, a significant portion of editors also wanted the article kept and presented reasoning based both in policy and adequate sourcing (with the sourcing in the recent source analysis table not sufficiently refuted). To me, the language in the closing statement is a clear supervote and the fact that the nom did not allege that is not relevant to my opinion. FrankAnchor 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did absolutely not intend for this to be a supervote, I have no interest in the article or whether it stays or goes. I am, however, unsurprised that editors want to re-ignite the feud at the AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that casting what could be considered by some users as a supervote was not the intent of a longtime admin and skilled closer like yourself. FrankAnchor 21:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor can you explain in more detail how @Ritchie333 close was a supervote? Based on the numbers the keeps were a not a "significant" portion (double check me). Going by straight vote, there were a total of 16 votes (including the nom) with 10 voting not to keep (delete/merge/redirect) and 6 voting to keep, which is 62.5% not to keep, and 37.5 keep before weighting the arguments. You would have to toss out 4 of the not keeps and none the keeps to get to a 50/50 split. I agree some of not keeps were not strong but some of keeps were not either and most of the not keeps explicitly state to merge or was not opposed to a merge. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 40% of the voters voted to keep, which is very significant. It’s not relevant that this is a minority because AFD is not a vote. My belief as to why part of the close is a supervote has already been explained above. FrankAnchor 22:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original nominator: I can't believe we finally got through that endless AfD only to wind up here at DRV. Many of the early !voters remained active in the conversation throughout the lengthy AfD, even after the expansion mentioned by the DRV nominator above, so I don't think it's accurate to say that the close is flawed because it was based on a substantially different version of the article. Furthermore, the new version is mostly just longer in text but introduces few new sources: compare 24 sources pre-expansion with 25 post-expansion — some have been swapped out, but they are largely the same. Given that the AfD was mostly about sourcing issues, I don't think that makes a substantial difference to the close. Note also that there were five days between the beginning of the expansion mentioned by the IP and when the AfD closed, which is plenty of time for people to weigh in. (Edit: see below) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there were five days between the beginning of the expansion mentioned by the IP and when the AfD closed, which is plenty of time for people to weigh in.
Apologies, I misread the edit history and got your IP confused with the 2600:4040 IP. I've stricken that portion of my comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? And how is that at all relevant here, other than as a continuation of your previous incivility? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one situation, you use your tools to fast-track the unsalting and your recreation of incel. In the other, you nominate the related article incels.is for deletion, which obviously ends up plagued by WP:PULLRANK.[note 1] What is the common denominator?
^four people "praised" you while voting in the AfD, two being keep voters
That's what I thought, just a continuation of the incivility. If you genuinely think I'm breaking policy as much as you're accusing me of it, please bring it to ANI or somewhere appropriate instead of bogging down these discussions (WP:ASPERSIONS). Regarding the incel deletion, as you'll see at that discussion, there was/is no great venue for a discussion, but I offered to start one — which nobody wanted me to do. As for WP:PULLRANK, that would suggest that admins can't nominate articles for deletion, a plainly absurd thing to say. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you genuinely think I'm breaking policy as much as you're accusing me of it
If juxtaposing fact 1 and fact 2 is that great of an accusation, then the facts must be damning. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, repeatedly accusing me of misbehavior without actually bringing it to ANI/etc. but instead in an attempt to influence this discussion is just WP:ASPERSIONS. Either stop, or take it to ANI. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:GorillaWarfare - Of course we end up here after that AFD. It is often the ugliest AFDs that end up here at DRV. That's the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And the editor who is insulting you is demonstrating that they don't have the courage to edit pseudonymously. Maybe DRV should be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The basic job of an encyclopaedist is to summarize what the reliable sources say about a topic. Summarize. Our task is to be clear and succinct, even where our sources are longwinded and waffly. People who can't say what they have to say briefly are in the wrong place. And the process of forming consensus is about persuading people to take your side. It's not about persisting until they give up through sheer exhaustion. You need to engage with what people say. Read. Comprehend. Think. Reply. People who won't do that need to be blocked for the good of the encyclopaedia. In the debate we're reviewing the "keep" side wasn't doing any of this: it was just disagreeing at ever-increasing length. The outcome should have been "delete" on our cultural norms, but I can understand the closer not wanting to deal with the sheer quantity of text they'd get for doing that. I'll go with overturn to delete on the strength of the arguments.—S MarshallT/C 07:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse decisions - but also see that !delete would have been a valid outcome. For me, uninterested in the topic and not before seeing the AfD, the main points are these:
1. There's an assertion about an academic paper source which names a forum at a different url being the same one (same management, same community) as the WP subject. I don't know how this could actually be proved without WP:OR
2. I don't really see why there is such an angry response to Merge when the contents would presumably be retained at the new target
3. With all the unpleasantness being thrown around, it seems like merge is actually a consensual conclusion that takes account of all the !keep comments despite their angry, personal statements from anon IP editors in the sense that it was accepted that the contents would be kept at the target.
4. There's no proceedual error which meant that !keep voters should have had a stronger impact on the outcome unless we accept that unpleasant loud voices should have a bigger say. In fact, if I was a closing Admin, I would have been highly likely to simply close to !delete and the closer showed considerable restraint. JMWt (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of Merge as a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been valid, and Merge is a compromise. The closer was however too optimistic in writing: I hope that's something that everyone, on all sides of the debate, can accept.. When an AFD gets as nasty as this one did, it is as likely as not to wind up here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was a difficult close and it appears that both merge and no consensus would have been valid outcomes. I strongly oppose an overturn to delete since there was little opposition to merging among the delete voters. Carson Wentz (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.