Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one
[1], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted"
[2]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes.
[1]
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago.
Desertarun (
talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months.
At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep.
Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement.
Owen×☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users.
Desertarun (
talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about.
Owen×☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and
has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—
Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a
run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not
WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to
WP:LASTING also includes
WP:INDEPTH and
WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how
WP:GNG isn't met. —
Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not
WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep.
And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not
run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is
run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in
WP:CSD.
Owen×☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of
WP:CONSENSUS.
Owen×☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on
WP:EVENT and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of
significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse.
WP:SLAPUser:Aviationwikiflight for
renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it.
Desertarun (
talk·contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at
WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED.
Jclemens (
talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G.
Jclemens (
talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others.
Owen×☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No action I can not go as far as endorsing an
WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. FrankAnchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relist. When there are similar numbers of valid merge !votes and keep !votes, it's pretty safe to assume the AfD is not appropriate for a NAC, let alone an involved NAC. The close was improper, and the weakness of the keep !votes makes it especially important that the AfD be evaluated by a neutral admin.
JoelleJay (
talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one
[1], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted"
[2]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes.
[1]
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago.
Desertarun (
talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months.
At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep.
Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement.
Owen×☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users.
Desertarun (
talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about.
Owen×☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and
has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—
Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a
run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not
WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to
WP:LASTING also includes
WP:INDEPTH and
WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how
WP:GNG isn't met. —
Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not
WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep.
And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not
run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is
run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in
WP:CSD.
Owen×☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of
WP:CONSENSUS.
Owen×☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on
WP:EVENT and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of
significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse.
WP:SLAPUser:Aviationwikiflight for
renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it.
Desertarun (
talk·contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at
WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED.
Jclemens (
talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G.
Jclemens (
talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others.
Owen×☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No action I can not go as far as endorsing an
WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. FrankAnchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relist. When there are similar numbers of valid merge !votes and keep !votes, it's pretty safe to assume the AfD is not appropriate for a NAC, let alone an involved NAC. The close was improper, and the weakness of the keep !votes makes it especially important that the AfD be evaluated by a neutral admin.
JoelleJay (
talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.