Black Canary (Dinah Laurel Lance) – No consensus. It appears that this AfD could have reasonably been closed as either "merge" or "no consensus". However, in practice there is not much difference in this case; even in cases where there is a clear consensus at AfD to merge, there is no consensus at the _target page to consent to accepting the new material. The merger should be discussed at Talk:Black Canary and we can proceed from there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠04:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The nom commented there there is no consensus (one vote for each option: keep, delete, redirect, merge). I argue that is not correct, per User:Shooterwalker comment (final in the disussion, for redirect) about noting support for merge among delete and keep !votes.. Setting aside that my deletion nomination should count as a second keep vote, I also mentioned merge there. Given merge can be seen as a second preference by most folks who commented there, I think this should be reclosed as a merge. This also would co-exist well with the merge close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Canary (Dinah Drake), although I can't blame the closer for not being aware of that. I do, midly, blame them for ignoring all the references to merge peppered in comments, if not in bold votes, in that short discussion reported here for review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - I think a no consensus result is within closer discretion on this. Incidentally, that I didn't comment further in the discussion is my own fault, and not that of the closer : ) - And besides, as we all know, DRV isn't XfD part deux : ) - jc3704:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge The closer was not wrong there was no consensus between Keeping, Deleting, Redirecting, and Merging in terms of bolded votes. However, I do think there was a clear consensus this should not be a stand-alone page on the site between the deletes, redirects, and merges, and if you read the votes closely, four out of the five voters explicitly supported a merge, the fifth was a keep !vote, and we also had a friendly commenter who was not against a merge. As a result, I would have closed this as a merge to Black Canary and I don't think no consensus was a valid choice for the closer, though I definitely understand how they came to that conclusion. SportingFlyerT·C17:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - When there is no consensus, No Consensus is usually a valid conclusion by the closer, and it was a valid conclusion by the closer in this case. Some alternative might have also been a valid conclusion, but the question is whether the conclusion was valid, which it was, not whether each of us would have closed differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge along the same lines as SportingFlyer: there was a consensus to "not keep", so the closer should have closed in favor of the most status-quo–ish flavor of "not keep", which is merge. This is especially true when you look beyond the bolded !votes: I suggest this should be merged and I agree that the pages need to be merged and I think the two articles covering Black Canary should be merged and Merge to Black Canary and noting support for merge among delete and keep !votes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because, as the closer suggested, this discussion did not reach consensus. I do see the merge undercurrents in the arguments that have been raised here, and I would also have supported a merge close if one had been performed on that basis. However we insist our closers judge consensus without imposing a supervote, and I am not inclined to reverse a closer for failing to read tea leaves. Of course, there's no reason that consensus to merge couldn't be reached on the talk page. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has a rather poor track record of dealing with complex fictional topics like this one. While I would generally prefer one fictional character article encompass everything about the character in one article, others cite SIZE as a rationale to remove citeable content they believe to be overly detailed, and hence limit coverage of the topic. When such topics (like this one) ARE broken out due to SIZE concerns, there is a set of editors who believe that the breakout article--again, cited content of a notable topic--must itself meet N for the facet of the larger, clearly notable topic it covers. If we solved this dilemma, then DRVs like this one will tend to solve themselves. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge: I'm pretty surprised this wasn't closed as a merge, since there is near unanimity in the comments, per WP:NOTVOTE. Rorschacma explicitly supported a merge. Rhishisikk commented supporting a merge (without !voting). Irimia florin supported a merge in their comments (while labeling their !vote as delete). I noted support for merge in my comment (while !voting to redirect). The nominator mentioned merge in their initial listing, as an WP:ATD. That means nearly every editor supported a merge in their comments. It can be tedious to read the actual comments at an AFD, but it's an essential part of looking for consensus and compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just a tag. It doesn’t complete the job. I see the template is used 114 times, and is backlogged weeks to months. Pretty poor practice. Is that what you want, the tag put on top?
Are you offering to do the merge? What if the merge is reverted? Are you going to claim there was a mandate at the AfD? That was not a mandate.
Oveturn to merge (or redirect) as a ATD agreed upon as second choices by four participants citing reasonable P&G rationales. I was planning to write a more detailed rationale, but SportingFlyer and Extraordinary Writ basically expressed what I wanted to say more clearly and concisely. VickKiang(talk)01:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same thing? Consensus is clear to keep the content in mainspace. The question is structuring. “Merge” is a vague goal, how to merge a character split is nontrivial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
