Endorse as an involved editor. A "merge" close was certainly justified from the discussion. This could of course be reevaluated in the future if sources demonstrating lasting notability become available. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a consensus to delete was never going to emerge so soon after the crash, but there is no enduring notability. A merger is a perfect stopgap solution when there was also no consensus to keep the article. It was a flash in the pan, that's not notability. StarMississippi18:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. In my opinion there is a consensus there not to retain the article in the AfD (delete and merge combined), and out of the two options, I chose merge as it is a valid alternate to deletion that was not rendered as an invalid option during the discussion (ie. there wasn't significant opposition to merging from those who !voted delete). Daniel (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as involved editor who voted keep. There was clear consensus that the article ought not be kept, and although I believe an interesting article could potentially be written on the media reaction to the event if there's long term coverage, I think merging was the appropriate outcome here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was consensus not to keep the article. While there were several well-reasoned views for delete and merge, there was clearly not consensus against merging, so that was the best available option. FrankAnchor23:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and I'd go so far as to say this is a model close for that discussion: rather than kicking the can down the road with a relist, the merge outcome allows retention of material and not as a separate page. We need more closures like this that cut through the chatter and identify the ideal policy-based outcome from a week's worth of opinions. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is not unanimity or near-unanimity, so consensus does not have to be totally against keeping the page for a 'delete' outcome. Sense of the group is what is needed and it's much less than totally one or the other thing.—Alalch E.23:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The OP has made no argument whatsoever for re-evaluation, other than their cursory subjective evaluation. There's no issue with which to agree (or even discuss). Feels like snow. BusterD (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It is not clear what the appellant wants or what their reasoning is. Do they want the page Kept, or Deleted? A consensus was not "totally against" keeping the page. A rough consensus was mostly against keeping the page. A close of Keep would be an incorrect close. The close of Merge was a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It feels like the appellant simply wants another kick at the can, rather than present a substantive argument for overturning a properly closed AfD. Owen×☎12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I appreciate that the closer actually parsed the comments instead of just the !votes. There was a consensus against keeping the article, and parsing the keep and delete !votes showed some support for merge. Agreeing on an WP:ATD has allowed editors to get back to covering this topic, within parameters defined by consensus. If this had been relisted or closed as no consensus, editors would still be arguing and potentially creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a good close and the practical option. Even before the close, the page contained a section about the incident at Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Since the close of one AFD does not affect content on other pages, the effect of the merge was to incorporate additional material to the main page about the bridge. A delete option in this case would not actually remove content. So, in practice delete and merge have nearly the same effect. --Enos733 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
