As I noted
on the closing admin's talk page I don't see how a single !vote to keep makes a consensus to keep. The reply refers to the closing rationale but that is essentially a supervote, even with it there's no consensus to keep, and otherwise the close makes no sense – there is no way the consensus is for what's described as "the correct action".
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds14:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
This also surprised me for the same reason. The closing summary did not seem to reflect the discussion. (1 Keep vs 4 Delete/Redirect votes) The Deletion votes were not focused on the lack of references per se but that notability was not supported by the references. I changed my vote from Deletion to Redirect on the found references but they were still not enough
WP:GNG. Not thrilled that my explanation was deleted by the closing administrator (looked like it was made simultaneous - I am sure it was before - with the close) I think the discussion should be allowed to continue.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
14:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The nominator said she had searched for sources but could not find any (but notes there may be sources in Chinese). Everyone else said essentially "you're right, there are no sources establishing notability". Then Cunard comes along with some sources. Seems like case closed to me. If you want to challenge Cunard's sources, then fine reopen the debate. But if you just want to reopen the debate because vote counting comes to a different answer that would just be wasting everyone's time.
SpinningSpark15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Reopen it seems to me that Cunard found some sources and if the above is true, it was closed a few hours later on that basis. Hardly enough time for anyone to discuss those sources further and reach a consensus. As it stands it sounds like actually one source was found, the other as a passing mention. As to if this reaches the bar for
WP:GNG is something AFD should have been given the chance to debate further not merely have it shutdown since the closer deemed the sources good enough. This seems a poor close. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
16:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relist if anyone actually believes this shouldn't be kept I can understanding closing it as keep as one could argue that the objections have been answered. But the sources aren't so overwhelmingly strong that there could be no reasonable objections to the sourcing. I just want to hear at least one person say "I believe this should be deleted/redirected" before it gets relisted. I've no such objection and will likely !vote to keep in the discussion.
Hobit (
talk)
17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Fine I'll say what I originally said in the AfD - it should be Redirected (even though that is not the reason I think the close was premature).
Peter Rehse (
talk)
18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect/delete The discussion did not support close as keep, although more time might have done. I was very surprised to see it closed as keep.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
In which case why don't you just undo your close and add your comment? No need to wait here a full 7 days and I'd expect a reopen to only need a day or two of additional comments for a firm consensus to form. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
It should be close by an uninvolved admin I think. There's no particular hurry so I'm happy to wait. It's also supposed to run for seven days unless someone wants to invoke a
snowball clause as there seems to be no-one supporting the keep outcome now.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The original closing admin is always at liberty to reopen the debate or otherwise reconsider their close, this is part of the reason for suggesting that discussions with the closing admin is normally the best thing to do to start with. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse but speedy relist. I endorse the close as an accurate assessment of the discussion. Once sources were provided, the votes that relied on no sources being provided were correctly given less weight, as
explained by SpinningSpark.
Comment Yes, the close was rather too quick and relisting has been, I think, the right thing. If someone less experienced than Cunard had actually added the references to the article and the AFD had been closed as delete (effectively overlooking the additions) then even more references might have been required to overcome a
WP:CSD#G4. However, in this case there seems to be goodwill all round.
Thincat (
talk)
18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
As I noted
on the closing admin's talk page I don't see how a single !vote to keep makes a consensus to keep. The reply refers to the closing rationale but that is essentially a supervote, even with it there's no consensus to keep, and otherwise the close makes no sense – there is no way the consensus is for what's described as "the correct action".
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds14:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
This also surprised me for the same reason. The closing summary did not seem to reflect the discussion. (1 Keep vs 4 Delete/Redirect votes) The Deletion votes were not focused on the lack of references per se but that notability was not supported by the references. I changed my vote from Deletion to Redirect on the found references but they were still not enough
WP:GNG. Not thrilled that my explanation was deleted by the closing administrator (looked like it was made simultaneous - I am sure it was before - with the close) I think the discussion should be allowed to continue.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
14:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The nominator said she had searched for sources but could not find any (but notes there may be sources in Chinese). Everyone else said essentially "you're right, there are no sources establishing notability". Then Cunard comes along with some sources. Seems like case closed to me. If you want to challenge Cunard's sources, then fine reopen the debate. But if you just want to reopen the debate because vote counting comes to a different answer that would just be wasting everyone's time.
SpinningSpark15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Reopen it seems to me that Cunard found some sources and if the above is true, it was closed a few hours later on that basis. Hardly enough time for anyone to discuss those sources further and reach a consensus. As it stands it sounds like actually one source was found, the other as a passing mention. As to if this reaches the bar for
WP:GNG is something AFD should have been given the chance to debate further not merely have it shutdown since the closer deemed the sources good enough. This seems a poor close. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
16:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relist if anyone actually believes this shouldn't be kept I can understanding closing it as keep as one could argue that the objections have been answered. But the sources aren't so overwhelmingly strong that there could be no reasonable objections to the sourcing. I just want to hear at least one person say "I believe this should be deleted/redirected" before it gets relisted. I've no such objection and will likely !vote to keep in the discussion.
Hobit (
talk)
17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Fine I'll say what I originally said in the AfD - it should be Redirected (even though that is not the reason I think the close was premature).
Peter Rehse (
talk)
18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect/delete The discussion did not support close as keep, although more time might have done. I was very surprised to see it closed as keep.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
In which case why don't you just undo your close and add your comment? No need to wait here a full 7 days and I'd expect a reopen to only need a day or two of additional comments for a firm consensus to form. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
It should be close by an uninvolved admin I think. There's no particular hurry so I'm happy to wait. It's also supposed to run for seven days unless someone wants to invoke a
snowball clause as there seems to be no-one supporting the keep outcome now.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The original closing admin is always at liberty to reopen the debate or otherwise reconsider their close, this is part of the reason for suggesting that discussions with the closing admin is normally the best thing to do to start with. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk)
22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse but speedy relist. I endorse the close as an accurate assessment of the discussion. Once sources were provided, the votes that relied on no sources being provided were correctly given less weight, as
explained by SpinningSpark.
Comment Yes, the close was rather too quick and relisting has been, I think, the right thing. If someone less experienced than Cunard had actually added the references to the article and the AFD had been closed as delete (effectively overlooking the additions) then even more references might have been required to overcome a
WP:CSD#G4. However, in this case there seems to be goodwill all round.
Thincat (
talk)
18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.