I'd like the keep over turned to no consensus and to be able to relist the article. As I've had problems with the closer in the past and the close was clearly due to our prior issues with each and not anything else. Otherwise, he would have just relisted it. Not that it should matter to the AfD process, but just an FYI the "personal attack" he referenced in the close that I supposedly made was me responding to @Phil Bridger: who has accused me multiple times, including in the AfD and after it, of being a racist simply for editing articles related to African subjects. Which for some strange reason @Ritchie333: didn't account for when closing the AfD and generally doesn't seem to have a problem with. I should be able to respond to someone who has repeatedly insinuated I'm a racist, including in the AfD, without having to worry that my AfDs are going to be closed for doing so. Especially if it's one where the person is making the insinuations. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's not full of bolded votes, but four users participated, and only the nom wanted to delete. (I'm also going to do something I'm not supposed to and make an AfD argument: The school also seems well-covered in Portuguese sources, so if this is relisted, I would not endorse a deletion.) SportingFlyerT·C23:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A no consensus close would have been very odd considering no one except the nominator advocated for deletion. It had already been re-listed once with no further participation. And I don't see any evidence that the close was clearly due to our prior issues. Assume good faith. P-K3 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is that he said he had already warned me about personal attacks. I don't see how you can say him specifically mentioning our past issues in the close doesn't show that it had anything to do with them. Otherwise, he would have just left that part out. Plus, Bridger said some clearly rude things that he never called out when he called my behavior out. So, he clearly wasn't being impartial about things and was targeting me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and frankly in a reasonable world the nominator should have been blocked for making comments urging people to commit suicide [1]. But as for the discussion itself nobody except the nominator supported deletion and they had reasonable arguments, so I don't think a close other than Keep is supportable. Hut 8.506:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Your being massively hyperbolic. No one is going to die from walking of a pier. The term just means to go away. Which I had every right to tell him to do since he kept insinuating I was a racist. Seriously. Someone calling me a racist is fine, but me telling them to go away is some how some big slight. What the hell ever. Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed the debate as "keep" for the reasons given above by those endorsing; as SportingFlyer says, although editors didn't boldface !vote, there were clear opinions from them that the article should be kept and improved. I have indeed called out Adamant1 for making personal attacks at AfDs and turning them into a shouting match, which is not helpful. I did notice that Phil Bridger's patience was being stretched, but he explicitly said he was still trying to assume good faith on your part. The admonishment on Adamant1 was primarily on this comment: "Also, your criticism that I'm ignoring "run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries" is obviously just more bullshit." and "Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier" and was more a note to everyone else in the debate that I had already noted this behaviour and hence no further action or reporting was required. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, whatever he said about how he was trying to assume good faith, he had already made a couple of totally unprovoked comments along theline of "I hope this isn't racism" in other AfDs and when he removed a few of my PRODs. So, if anything my patience was being stretched by then. He said it again after that to. If you felt my use of "bullshit" or whatever wasn't cool, fine. It's your prerogative, but at the same time it wasn't cool to single me out and ignore his side of it in the AfD, or not factor in the fact that he had already done it a few times by then. Sorry, but there's absolutely zero amount of someone insinuating/calling other users racists that should be acceptable or tolerated, and it's not something I take lightly. Nor should I. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- It was probably the correct close. But I share Adamant1's frustration about the personal attacks here. If someone insinuated I was a racist and a nasty piece of work based on the AfDs I participate in, I'd tell them to piss off too. But, as usual, you can say what you like about other people provided you preface it with the word "keep". WP:NPA only applies to those schmucks who !vote delete. ReykYO!11:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited Phil to this discussion, but I cannot see anywhere where he called anyone a racist. At worst he implied that somebody was exhibiting systemic bias by trying to treat topics in different part of the world with an equal level of expected sourcing. If Adam thought Phil was implying he was a racist, then I can understand why he might have got cross, but pretty much the first action you should take in a civility dispute is to check you haven't just misunderstood the other person - very often, it turns out to be the case. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff on October 19th where he removed one of my PRODs, which was after the AfD, he said "I hope it's not racism" at the end of his changeset comment. Counting the AfD, that's at least twice. Unfortunately I cleaned out a lot of my watchlist a week ago so that's all I could find, but there is other instances of him saying things. Including before the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'd say right here: You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here. "unsavoury agenda" means racism. Lev!vich17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me about this discussion, User:Ritchie333. I will not make any comment about the substantive issue here, to avoid any suspicion of canvassing, but must point out that behavioral issues belong elsewhere, so let's all just talk here about whether the AfD outcome was correct. If anyone wants to raise my behaviour at an appropriate place then I will happily discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there was a keep consensus, but I certainly do not endorse the use of an AfD close as a platform to talk about a user's behaviour. This is problematic because AfD closes aren't supposed to be edited, and the effect of that is to deny the target the right of reply. I don't believe I've ever seen anything of the kind before, and I've had DRV on my watchlist for a dozen years now.—S MarshallT/C16:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - First, about the article itself because that's what the AfD is supposed to be about: It needs more sources included but a quick search does turn up hits and they get significant coverage. I tend to lean inclusionist. I won't apologize for that. Something that is important in my area of the world may mean nothing to someone in South Africa. It doesn't mean it is or isn't notable. Ultimately the consensus was to keep and would be that again if relisted.
Secondly, an AfD is not a place to discuss anyone's behavior but can be used to point out a history of issues, not on the AfD, but elsewhere. I don't know, Adamant, so to say or insinuate they are racist is a big deal. I can see where they would be upset if it was perceived that way. As a side note: A person can use biased and even racist language without being a racist themselves. Not saying Phil did that or Adamant is that. If anyone feels like the inflammatory language used by a specific editor goes too far, like possibly over multiple discussions they have with others, then that should be brought up on an admin discussion board. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I used "seem" in the nomination to maybe help combat the near endless attacks by the "inclusionist" crowd when they found a source that the nominator didn't do a BEFORE. I would think you'd have a less petty reason to endorse a close. Last time I checked there are no rules about what words someone can use in a nomination. There's nothing wrong with someone saying "from what I can tell there are no sources" and it's an extremely banal to act like there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed something wrong with saying "from what I can tell there are no sources". That statement is empty rhetoric. To give it substance, say what you did to look for sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. There should be an assumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence looking for sources if they say they did without them having to list every search term they used, database they looked through, key one their keyboard they pressed, etc. etc. It's not a "empty rhetoric" for someone to say they looked for sources. If they did, then its just statement of fact and claiming otherwise is just nitpicking as a way to dismiss for no reason another persons work offhand as not valid. Even if nominators list exactly what they did people will just find another petty reason to dismiss their nomination anyway. So, personally, I'm not going to waste my time on it. Nor do I have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. On wording advice, I would say: change “ This school doesn't seem notable.” to “This school is not notable, because there are no non-primary sources”, and keep the rest. Admittedly this is small wording, but I notice that it affects the flow of the discussion. After that, more importantly, is User:AleatoryPonderings’ (06:15, 7 September 2020) eight sources. It’s tedious, but it requires a source by source analysis. Minimally, examine the first WP:THREE, and if all 3 fail, he is rebutted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is then I'd saying it's an absolute and that I'm authority on what's notable. Neither of which would be the case. WP:AFD explicitly says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." If anyone could 100% say for certain that something is notable or not, then there would be no need for a discussion about it. Notability isn't a black and white thing anyway and obviously anyone who takes an position one way or another is just giving their opinion. If you want to talk about "empty rhetoric", saying you know for sure something isn't notable is the epitome of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I get what your saying. Wikipedia-notability is confusing. I point to the WP:GNG being a set of objective criteria. Go through each source. It is reliable and reputable published (eg not a blog, not youtube). Does it make comment about the topic, minimum about two running sentences for a maybe. Is the publication, and it’s author(s), independent of the topic? When someone lists a bunch of putative notability attesting sources, you have to start by explaining why they don’t. In this AfD, that analysis didn’t happen, and the discussion derailed, and so “delete” was not a possible close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I got into the habit of writing "seems" and "appears" in my AFD noms after repeatedly being accused of lying for saying, e.g. something didn't meet GNG or that searching Google news didn't bring up any GNG-satisfying sources. Lev!vich02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“accused of lying” is incivilly strong, but otherwise thats unsurprising. Be specific and measured, and reproducible, eg “the top ten google news hits include no GNG-meeting sources”, and even then, it’s better to point to the specific aspect of failure, non reliable, non independent, none providing direct comment on the topic. I think it is fair that the onus for the most work lies with the nominator, otherwise use the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean do a source analysis pointing to specific aspects of failure, like this? What's the response? From Phil: The fact that the nominator says that it "appears to be a paid death notice" when the very link that he provided shows that it is in fact an obituary casts severe doubt on whether we can believe all his other statements above. There's Phil, finding one mistake, and saying I cannot be believed because of it. Mmm. Here is one without a source analysis, in which I'm accused of ignoring BEFORE. Meanwhile, here are some where there is no source analysis at all, and it's just straight delete. [2][3][4]. With those ones, nobody attacked me because nobody disagreed with the nom. The point is: it's not the nomination statement that makes a difference, Joe, it's the participants. Some participants routinely attack nominators no matter what. And it'd be great if AFD closers and DRV participants would pay attention and help improve the toxicity of AFDs. (Rather than blame the victim.) Lev!vich14:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Levivich, you have my sympathy for sure. But sorry. “Does not appear” is not a good nom lede, and it invites criticism of the nominator. Unfairly perhaps. On that article, it is WP:PROF. Few seem to appreciate ... WP:PROF *predates* and enjoys independent consensus to “Wikipedia-notability”, and it specifically is the sole SNG with consensus for keeping topics that fail the WP:GNG as written, black letter literalistic reading. Seventy year old academics with over 100 publications will have their biography kept even if no one ever has written about them. Why do people attack? I think people go on the attack when the ground rules are so unclear. My answer: Do not talk GNG on PROF articles. I have put a lot of effort on Wikipedia into understand Wikipedia-notability including WP:PROF and including lengthy discussions with the two David’s, and it’s hard to explain, but they are right. I suggest staying away from academics if you are not connected to academics. Feel free to AfD fake academics, such as recent graduates with an h index under ten or twenty, and who do not have a university staff page and lab page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think it's hilarious that some people are bawling Adamant1 out for using strong language, others for being too non-committal. Talk about lose-lose. ReykYO!07:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was easier to do a second AfD eventually if an article is closed as no consensus. Which is the only reason I did the DvR. If that's the case, then my bad. If so though,then it does matter which flavor of close there is. Adamant1 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article was correctly deleted is decided on the basis of the AfD discussion, not the wish of the nominator to nominate once again an article on a school in Africa. Can you please explain why you consider schools in Africa to be less notable than those in Western Anglophone countries, because I still cant see a valid reason for your campaign against them. And, no, my reference to "Western Anglophone countries" is not racist at all, despite your comment in the AfD that it is "semi-racist" and something that has no "meaning or usefulness outside of Klan rally". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not racism, then what did "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here" refer to? What was the unsavory agenda you couldn't help feeling? Lev!vich19:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue. My comment above was, very clearly if you read it, a rebuttal of the nominator's explicit claim that referring to "Western Anglophone countries" is racist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside the remit of DRV. If you think there are behavioural problems which need to be addressed, you know where ANI is (though I personally find nothing wrong with what Phil's actions.) SportingFlyerT·C17:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reported him to ANI. Hopefully that will deal with things. Since he seems completely unwilling at this point to give up the smear campaign on his own. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentObviously. I never said it should be decided by the desire of the nominator. Obviously there's a difference between a keep and a no consensus close or everything that's not delete would be closed as keep. Also, I don't see me nominator a few African schools is a campaign against them or "Africa." Nowhere in my AfDs or anywhere else did I say that the nominations have anything to do with "Africa." Your the only one's that framing it that way and your the one who brought up race, or what continent/culture or whatever your arguement is that the articles are based on, multiple times and for a while now. So I don't get what your point is. Except that you clearly don't articles being deleted and you have no better arguement to keep it from happening. As a side thing, I by my KKK comment. I'm pretty sure I said in the AfD (or maybe somewhere else) that it's completely ridiculous and racely/culturally ignorant to treat people from places like the Congo and Egypt as the same thing ethnically just because both are located in Africa. The only place where doing so is a KKK rally where other ignorant "Western Anglophones" are going to nodes their heads and agree because everyone from the continent (even South African whites) are just black to them. Again though, your the one that brought it up and made it about that in the first place. I could ultimately give a shit where the schools I'm nominating are located or what ethnicity the pupils of the schools are. Not that I should have to defend myself to every race bating person that comes along in the first place though. Its actually a pretty common, trite line of attack on here and I find it rather borish, because its so damn played out and meaningless at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was quite reasonable. The nominator should not given any encouragement to make further nominations as this would be contrary to our deletion policy, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I would have waited the obligatory six months. I'll still probably renominate it anyway. Last time I checked, I can do that. People re-nominate articles all the time. I just thought no-consensus was a "truer" outcome because the only keep vote was a "weak keep." I could ultimately care less either way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... what? A policy that says it can be disruptive... should not be interpreted to mean that a re-nomination is always disruptive in every possible circumstance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus without prejudice to speedy renom - Normally I wouldn't fuss about overturning a keep to NC, but Andrew Davidson's comment above reminded me of why the difference is a real one. This AFD was poisoned right here with this comment. At that point, nobody had yet made a formal vote, and after someone suggests that "there is an unsavoury agenda here", no one is going to want to join in, especially not to !vote delete. After that point, with the exception of one weak keep, every comment was about the racism accusation. That's a poisoned discussion, and that's why the relist (and a relist at this point) won't make a difference: no one wants to join a discussion where someone on one side is accusing someone on the other side of an unsavory agenda. It should have been closed as no consensus, and if someone still thinks the topic is not notable (taking into account the new sources), they can re-nom it and have a new discussion. I realize this is a futile !vote, but a discussion like this shouldn't be endorsed. Lev!vich02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Discussions are not "poisoned" by a single sentence that someone posts. If that was the case, it would be quite easy to "poison" any discussion, making any particular outcome invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've been of the opinion for a while now that one of the main reasons keep voters (including you) spew vitriol everywhere is because it turns off delete voters, who clearly don't appreciate it or want it pointed toward them, from participating. Really, I can't say I blame or anyone else who does it. Since it's clearly effective and realistically 99% of the time spewing vitriol to turn off anyone from voting delete is the only way the articles you do it in are kept. Plus, it's not like there's ever any consequences for it. So..... --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can. It was relevant as a response to your comment that AfDs discussions can't be "poisoned." Their poisoned all the time by the almost endless personal attacks and other disparaging messages you and other keep voters write. I'm sure you and the other people wouldn't make the comments in the first place if they had zero effect on things. It wasn't just a single sentence in this case either. Phil Bridger wrote multiple disparaging comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining about being warned for making personal attacks. You are now launching personal attacks at me, with no evidence. How does this prove that you are a victim in this case? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm complaining that an AfD with only a single weak keep vote was closed as keep. When IMO it should be closed as no consensus. Which I've been extremely clear about. As far as if my comment is "making personal attacks", it's just a fact, supported by clear evidence, that almost every other comment made by you and other keep voters in AfDs are either direct personal attacks or some other kind of slight. In no is that a personal attack any more then me saying Phil Bridger insinuated I'm a racist is, it's just reality. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you have clear evidence. Can you show me any evidence that "almost every other comment" made by me in AfD discussions is a direct personal attack on you? — Toughpigs (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to not make back handed comments in your votes like "I apologize if anyone finds this comment mentally taxing" anymore? Until that happens, no I wouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while I am disturbed by some of the statements made during the course of the discussion, the close itself was a reasonable evaluation of the consensus. However, this outcome does not rule out another AfD in six months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Calamba Medical Center – Relisted. Opinion is divided about whether to endorse or to relist or overturn to no consensus, with a majority favoring the latter view. Under these circumstances, relisting the (very limited) discussion is appropriate. Sandstein 08:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed as "delete". There were only 2 votes: 1 delete and 1 keep (voted by yours truly). The rationale of the other who voted to delete it isn't strong enough to establish a consensus for deletion. He stated that references in the article are missing when, in fact, anyone can find sources about it. It was relisted once, but no one participated aside from the nominator who responded to my vote. IMV, the discussion should've been overturned as no consensus or, better yet, relisted for the second time. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE)08:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's declining editor numbers mean that some discussions attract low participation nowadays and we can't just keep relisting multiple times, because that sucks attention away from other discussions which will themselves need to be relisted, creating a snowballing problem of lack of AfD participation. It's a problem that can only be resolved, over the long term, by sysop willingness to close low-participation discussions.I agree that the sources listed by the only editor who opposed deletion were of unusually poor quality. But with all that said, I don't perceive a "delete" consensus in that debate.—S MarshallT/C09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: Astig's argument for keep was convincingly rebutted by the nominator and since there was no follow-up discussion after 3 days, I assumed that was uncontested. That left two policy-based !votes for delete and one for keep that was deweighted. In my view that was both sufficient participation and a consensus for deletion. It's also worth noting that this was part of a batch of nominations of articles about hospitals in the Philippines [5][6][7][8], several of which had higher participation, and all were either deleted or redirected. Had I seen those before this one, I might have closed as a redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines per WP:ATD, which could also be a good outcome here. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question presented is whether delete is a reasonable outcome. With a 2-1 result and the sources provided in favour of keeping being thoroughly discussed, I think the outcome from the perspective of the closer was indeed reasonable. However, I think the source analysis was wrong - I think they are secondary and pass WP:GNG. I know this isn't the place to relitigate an AfD, but perhaps a relist would be worthwhile, since I'm not sure this gets us to a correct result. SportingFlyerT·C13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC I've said above this was a 2-1 vote, but looking at this again I don't agree with one of the delete !votes now that sources were provided (that advocated deletion on the basis the article was unreferenced, but lacking references in the article is not a notability problem - as an example we wouldn't delete Nicola Sturgeon if her article lacked references), so I think no consensus is the correct result here if you correctly downweight that vote. SportingFlyerT·C21:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC no objection to an additional relist. The one !vote for deletion addressed the state of the article, not the topic. The keep !vote provided sources, the nom argued why they aren't great. We don't have a consensus for anything. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - sources were presented that realistically meet at least more or less WP:N, and we rebutted but not successfully by the nominator asserting that they're "interviews", which is largely untrue (they have a couple comments from probably requests for comment or public statements, as you'd expect any responsible report to do, but they're not interviews). No perponderence of the headcount, no preponderance of the arguments, no consensus. No consensus would allow a fairly quick renomination, if desired, which is probably wiser than a re-open, but that last bit is, of course, just a guess. WilyD07:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Either no consensus or delete would have been acceptable, so the closing administrator didn't get this wrong. Overturning or reopening because you think people should have voted keep isn't really in DRV's jurisdiction. ReykYO!08:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, I NEVER said or think that people should have voted to keep the article. It just needs a little more time to get a fair and clear consensus, just like the similar AfD. And I NEVER meddle with anyone who voted to keep or delete or redirect it. Ain't nobody got time for arguing with them. Don't be judgmental with what I think. 🙂 ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE)01:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator is presumed to support deletion as well, and two-thirds in favour is a rough consensus to delete. The strength of arguments was not materially different on either side. Relisting debates incessantly is discouraged. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC or relist. One delete !vote failed to address the question of notability, leaving us with one editor on each side. While the delete argument is probably stronger, one person does not a consensus make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closer provided no explanation and appears not to have read the nomination which stated clearly that the issue was "...to decide a redirect is appropriate or not". Redirects are not created by deletion and so the closer appears to have not considered alternatives. Such action is contrary to WP:DGFA, which emphatically states that "When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The "keep" argument was rebutted, as the sources provided were challenged. Now, a quick glance tells me I'm not necessarily in agreement with how those sources were characterized by the nominator, but no one rebutted the rebuttal, and several days passed before closure, enough for interested parties to examine the sources and discuss them, which the "keep" participant did not further do. Therefore I assume the closer took the argument at face value, and there's no reason to do otherwise. A relist, or a no-consensus, or a delete closure would have been reasonable. As one of the reasonable actions took place, I endorse the closure. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
