- Kathleen Snavely (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus in this AfD (closed by a non-admin) did not appear to be leaning towards redirecting or deleting. In this particular AfD, 5 voted in favour of keeping and 6 voted in favour of deleting and/or redirecting. However, this same article was nominated for deletion only a month previously and the outcome was "keep". The article had not changed much since, so I don't see how consensus can change that quickly. I think the closer of the second AfD should have at least considered the result of the first one. Overall, opinions appear to be mixed (slightly in favour of keeping). So, I think this should be overturned to "keep" or "no consensus". Ollie231213 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. However, it did not belong at AfD as there was no nomination or rationale to delete anything. I read a consensus that coverage is appropriate, but that coverage belongs in a list. Centenarians collectively are notable, so there should be articles on centenarians collectively. There were no valid rationales to delete, noting a couple of pointy hyperreactions "delete" and "delete and redirect" which I am sure is more motivated by frustration with the prevalence of non-notable standalone unexpandable centenarian biostubs and the need to do something about them in the face steady resistance. It is appropriate for referenced biostub information to be contained in lists somewhere under Category:Supercentenarians; the unexpandable biostubs should be merged to lists, there is no reason for deletion in normal cases, these discussions should be unwelcome at AfD. If there continues to be disagreement with this, I recommend an RfC on the merging of supercentenarians stubs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear where the supervote allegation comes from. The closing decision was strongly represented in the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you analyze RAN's contributions to DRV, he basically calls any close he disagrees with a supervote. Hopefully the closing admin will give it the weight it deserves. Spartaz Humbug! 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn NAC there were a lot of ways this could be closed, the !vote wasn't clear and as such it just wasn't a good candidate for a non-admin close. And as deletion wasn't actually an option, it didn't belong at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested to know what the closer was thinking. Did he take into account the previous discussion during the close, and if so, what weight did he give it? This close could be wrong, but it's not obviously wrong. The closer has sufficient experience at AfD to close —discussions there.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate NAC as not an obvious result. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
- Endorse - close was a reasonable reflection of the consensus, even considering both AfDs. NAC not a factor here. Thparkth (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't a good candidate for a NAC, not because the outcome obviously looks wrong, it doesn't I might well have closed the same way myself, but because the supercentarian area is rife with disagreement about what should be kept and what should not. As such, any outcome is open to disagreement and an NAC close, even done right, creates a reason for someone to feel more aggrieved than usual. I don't feel strongly enough to vote overturn or endorse but I did feel the tension in the area needed injecting into this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn NAC Another closer !supervote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, realising that these centenarian articles are a bit of a hot topic at the moment, it's not surprising that consensus has changed here. Seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion, given the relative strengths of the arguments made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- I can't believe that consensus can change that quickly in just a few weeks. It's more down to the fact that AfD's only involve a relatively small number of editors. If you look across the two AfD's, about 60% of participants voted to keep. It's rather bold, especially for an NAC, to close this as a redirect. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn out-of-process NAC per arguments of Stifle and Spartaz. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn NAC / Close as No Consensus The whole AfD 1 / AfD 2 process was questionable and there is no room for a non-administrative closure by an inexperienced editor in circumstances where there is no clear consensus whatsoever. It's bad enough when an admin puts his thumb on the scale and casts a supervote, but when inexperienced editors who haven't passed community scrutiny arrogate the right to make their own rules and judgements, the consequences are far more severe. The lack of any explanation whatsoever by the non-admin closer only provides evidence that the close is wrong. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn NAC and relist - This was clearly an inappropriate non-administrator close (NAC) under the circumstances per WP:NAC, and probably should have been re-listed instead of closed given the clear voting trend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|