This non-admin closure by J947 (talk·contribs) should be reexamined by an administrator. The "keep" opinions were few and relatively weak. Only one editor made a substantial "keep" argument, and the other "keep" opinion was a WP:WAX argument. Granted, the "delete" opinions weren't the best either, but nobody from the "keep" side addressed the IP editor's (correct, in my view) argument that "both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as 'significant coverage'". Sandstein 09:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have closed this as delete, but I don't think the close is totally out of line. The delete arguments would have been stronger if they had more specifically addressed the two added sources. The IP editor said, both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as "significant coverage". That would have been a stronger argument if the editor had addressed the proposed sources individually, and in more detail. As it is, it's hard to tell just how much effort went into evaluating them. Also (and I admit this may not reflect policy), I would have given more weight to that comment had it come from an established editor instead of an IP. In short, I agree that none of the arguments on either side were particularly well stated, so NC isn't an unreasonable conclusion, despite the delete-leaning headcount. I'm going to stop short of actually endorsing the close, but would have no objection if some other admin felt it should be re-closed. -- RoySmith(talk)13:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have probably closed it as delete as well, but the discussion is pretty poor and the close is defensible. I'd support a relist; that article deserves a stronger discussion. Mackensen(talk)14:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closing editor specifically said that a further AFD would be possible, I'm curious as to why we're here rather than just listing it again. No consensus isn't how I'd have gone, but it is defensible. Lankiveil(speak to me)23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Let it go. See WP:RENOM for getting it deleted. It's another poorly nominated AfDs. User:Re5x, as nominator, the onus is on your to make a rationale to delete, not just to throw something up for others to look at. Drop the "seems to"s when nominating. Don't nominate unless you are sure it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have expected a delete outcome here, but the deletion !votes really are poor (the keeps are worse...), so NC might just be the best close. I'd have suggested relist, but there were already enough of those... Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, everybody. A renomination seems to be the best way forward, and I'll do that as soon as I get around to it. Sandstein 07:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
