- Melbourne bus route 601 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm asking for this to be reviewed as a matter of process as I don't think one can properly say there was a consensus in favour of deleting this article, at worst it was no consensus and should have been kept for that reason:
- This AfD was left open for 3 weeks
- Most of the discussion was in favour (at least nominally) of keeping, including from myself who changed their view after some sources were put forward.
- The third time the AfD was left open to gauge better consensus, only one !vote was added which occurred only very shortly before the AfD was closed and there wasn't really a chance to respond to that
- Some of that comment was incorrect (The Age is *not* a "local" source, it is one of Australia's largest metropolitan newspapers - the local source would be the local area paper from the particular part of Melbourne where the route is.
- It appears the closer has relied heavily on that last comment as gauging consensus, and I don't think that is right. Deus et lex (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse- it looks to me that either delete or no consensus would have been justifiable. I don't see that the closing administrator has done anything wrong here. I certainly don't see any reason for throwing the last vote on the discard pile just because it came late in the process. Reyk YO! 11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment from closing admin - Deus et lex, if you had asked for clarification on my talk page before starting a DRV, I would have happily provided an explanation of how I came to the conclusion I did. For future reference, this is highly encouraged (see step 1 of DRV instructions above). As I'm sure we're all aware, judging consensus is not about counting votes, it's about assessing the quality of arguments with respect to WP policy. In this particular case, the arguments to keep mostly boiled down to an WP:ILIKEIT argument. They argue that it is among the "most significant bus routes", that there would be a "noisy uproar and protests" if the bus route were cancelled, that the bus route has attracted long queues of riders, etc. A few links to sources were provided towards the end of the discussion, but none of them mentioned the bus route more than a single time. Therefore, I saw no indication of a consensus that the topic has sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG at this time. For me, this significantly reduced the quality of the arguments to keep the article, and therefore I found consensus to delete. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can fully understand how the closing admin didn't see this as keep, SW did a fine job of arguing that above. But as he's reminded the nom here about good practices, so too should he keep in mind that when closing against the majority in a discussion it's a darn fine idea to leave something of a justification rather than wait to be asked. That said, there is a clear merge target and that's a more reasonable outcome per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M. Perhaps the closer felt that there was nothing to merge, but then we don't know that because it wasn't in the discussion (the only argument that addressed merging was in favor of doing so) and the closer didn't address the issue in the close... overturn to merge Hobit (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse - The conclusion is a reasonable close from the discussion, but, in view of the length that it was open, and that it isn't obvious on its face what the close should be, and so requires judgment by the closer, the closer should have explained why they closed it as Delete. Adequate close, wrong explanation (none). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Is it possible to temporarily restore the page while the DRV is open? So that those of us mere mortals who are non-admins can look at it and see what kind of sources it had at the time of the AfD? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse with a caveat. Delete was the correct result based on the discussion and the weight of the arguments. However, the best result here would be a selective merge/redirect to the the list of bus routes in Melbourne, as the nominator discussed in one of their responses. Hopefully we can keep the sourced information there. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
|