- Wenja language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Should have been a no consensus close, there was no clear numerical majority in favour of keep, and I do not agree with the reasoning only a small portion of the merge supporters indicat[ed]that it was "merge or bust" , to me, this sentiment was not evident in the merge votes. "No consensus" represents a more accurate reading of the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, I completely agree with you on your position regarding the article - it violates all sorts of WP:NOT - and probably would have closed this as no consensus myself, but it's a distinction without a difference. Wait a couple weeks and then start a merge discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This looked like it was either a Keep or Merge closure and a Merge discussion can occur after a Keep closure. There was no support for Deletion. Also, can you place the appropriate tag on the AFD that directs editors to this discussion? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a participant, because the fundamental merge argument was not policy-supported: there's a lot of primary-sourced stuff here, so even though it has academic, independent, extensive coverage... it's still too reliant on that and violates DUE. That would be a reasonable argument if and only if there was another viewpoint on the language represented in secondary sources that was crowded out by reliance on primary sources. Even if there were a credible merge-not-keep argument, ties go to keep, so in order to overturn, we would have to find that keep wasn't even a credible outcome, which is clearly not obvious on the basis of either numbers or strength of argument. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of AfD participants just restating their vote? The whole point of deletion review is to get an outside perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't just restate my !vote. I assessed the sum of the opposing arguments. But I also disclosed (even though it's visible for all to see) that I participated in the AfD up front, because that's part of transparency: that even through anyone can comment here, Wikipedia runs better on full disclosure of prior involvement in any discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer comment So, firstly, it would have been nice for @Hemiauchenia: to talk to me first, but anyway... my close hopefully covers most of it, but to clarify the "merge or bust", few of the policy-backed merge !votes read as if they were arguing for a "if not merge, then delete" position. While I went for Keep on its own merits, a no consensus would actually have had the same formal effect, except for encouraging a merge attempt through AfD rather than the proper portal - the article would have been retained and someone could have started a merge discussion which they could still do. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this should have been brought to AfD in the first place, nor did it need to. Other XfD venues may be different, but AfD is specialised on deletion, which was not really even proposed here — there's even a case for closing this as SK1. Removal of primary-sourced content and/or merger can be done outside of the deletion process, and an AfD isn't really needed nor all that effective. This is a case where you could WP:JUSTDOIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think this is a confusing area in policy. This case could have been a WP:MERGEPROP, but could plausibly be framed as a WP:CONRED instead. Suriname0 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - No Consensus would have been a valid conclusion, and would have the same effect as Keep. There isn't a strong argument to Merge, and no argument to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as it matters especially little whether the outcome of this AfD was "keep" or "no consensus" given that the desired end result is merger. —Alalch E. 08:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
