- Embassy of the United States, Asunción (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Four people wanted this gone from the mainspace: myself as nominator, a delete voter and two redirect voters. Only one wanted it kept, plus a PERNOM voter. Yet that is, in effect, what happened.
This outcome is even more odd given this very similar discussion. There, the participants’ alignment was the same, except there was one redirect voter, not two. And yet the outcome was a redirect. Why the discrepancy? — Biruitorul Talk 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but allow early renomination. Even if we ignore the PERX, there are still three on that AfD who didn't want the history deleted, versus two who did. Personally, I would have closed this as a redirect. But with a 2-2 split between the Delete and the Redirect views, and at least one well-reasoned Keep view, a No consensus is well within the discretion of the closing admin. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (or overturn to keep). The discussion should have ended as "keep" at the time of the first relist. Pilaz demonstrated notability and this was not substantively contradicted. The two last editors recommending redirection argued that the content is non-topical, i.e. that there is a mismatch between the subject as denoted by the title of the article and the actual content, but that wasn't entirely true because there were at least two sentences talking about the embassy, and that is enough for a stub (
The Embassy of the United States in Asunción is the diplomatic mission of the United States in Paraguay. ... On June 29, 2023, a new embassy was opened on the same 14-acre site as the previous building ). Offending content could have been cleaned up by anyone by simply removing it, as an editorial action, which doesn't require an AfD redirect. Topical content could have been written by anyone to expand the article from a stub, using the sources identified in the AfD, which doesn't require for the article to have been redirected first.—Alalch E. 03:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - If there isn't a consensus on what to do, sometimes No Consensus really is a valid close, and this is such a case. A closer needs courage to take on an AFD that has a scattering of !votes. If they tease a close out of the scattering, someone is likely to disagree, and ask DRV to overturn to No Consensus. If they close it as No Consensus, because there was no consensus, someone is likely to ask DRV to overturn, and say that the closer should have reasoned a closure. I will seldom !vote in DRV to overturn a close of No Consensus, which is almost always a valid close when there is a scattering, and is sometimes the best close. There really was No Consensus in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I wouldn’t have opened this discussion had there not been a different result in a similar discussion just a couple of days later; I assumed the inconsistency was a problem. But seeing how my proposal is headed nowhere, I would like to withdraw it, if that’s possible at DRV, rather than prolong the inevitable. — Biruitorul Talk 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can absolutely withdraw your nomination. I commend you for doing the right thing. An uninvolved admin will soon close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
