Aame Katha – Closer agreed with 'No Consensus' as revised AfD outcome, will modify close appropriately. Non Admin Closure. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This deletion discussion concerns a film on which there is a paucity of coverage. The closer found that there is consensus to keep. The close should be overturned to no consensus or relisted /struck by DRV nom: proposal to relist withdrawn/ for the following reasons:
The closer did not interpret consensus correctly when he found that there is consensus when in fact there was not (yet) consensus; 3 advocated for keep and 2 advocated to delete, and the discussion was ongoing. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, closers must determine when rough consensus has been reached. The discussion was not yet at the point when this determination could be made, as the discussion was pretty lively and evenly divided, with participation from all sides being policy-based and having appropriate weight. In addition: When the closer found that, Consensus reached is that this article passes WP:NFO, it would indicate that WP:NFO criterion #3 can be a controlling norm here, on which to base notability. However, it can't. I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but it's as if the closer hadn't read WP:NFO #3 fully, which says: This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, .... This means that one can't find a pro-notability consensus based solely on WP:NFO #3.
Tied to reason #2 : Had the closure not been so quick I would have added that the award is not sufficiently major, and that would also point us back to a lack of 'clear consensus' required for a non-admin closure in this matter. It's looks to me as if the closer was persuaded by the last comment, and their successively quick close reads as emotive support for keep based on that argument alone, without much regard for the rest of policy-based advocacy expressed. This creates a perception of pile-on supervoting, which even if not truly the case, already at the level of a perception, makes a non-admin close really improper.
Substantial procedural errors - according to WP:NACAFD, the close was an improper non-admin close -- Non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion ... which is beyond doubt a clear keep means that they can not close a discussion which is not a clear keep. Not only was this not a clear keep, there wasn't even rough consensus to keep. The way this discussion had progressed, the !votes being roughly split, and having in mind the nature of the subject where it was not in dispute that there's a great paucity of sources, it could probably not ever be subject to a proper non-admin closure. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me as soon as you tried to frame that as a premature close. No way. Anyone could have closed that and it was long overdue for closure. You might persuade me to overturn to no consensus, but I can agree with very little in that nomination statement.—S MarshallT/C 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I didn't say that the discussion was not overdue. It was overdue. Being 'overdue' measured in days, relative to the 'seven days' period has procedural implications, but consensus can't arise from this passage of time alone. Discussions can only be closed with a material finding of consensus when there is consensus. This deletion discussion had stalled for a long time, but was reinvigorated on September 10 and was heading towards a state of thoroughness, and the consensus-forming process was interrupted by the close. Precisely because it was being significantly overdue, it started to generate attention and multiple editors started commenting at the same time, engaging with each other. This is emphatically not when you close, this is when you let the discussion proceed naturally to see where it will end up. Maybe the keep argument would have been strengthened, who knows? Rough consensus doesn't mean that a discussion that hasn't run it's natural course can be "roughened up" to clear up the log. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELIST is the rule here. It explains that discussions may be relisted a maximum of twice, or thrice in exceptional circumstances that are clearly explained by the closer. Nobody who is qualified to close AfDs would have relisted that a fourth time. We have that rule because AfDs are expensive in volunteer time and volunteer time is Wikipedia only scarce resource. It had to be closed then. I could get behind overturning that to no consensus but there's little difference in practice. Welcome to DRV, by the way. —S MarshallT/C 13:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome. Basically I edited in relist as a proposed outcome after the fact, my primary idea here is to overturn to no consensus. I'm convinced now that relist is not a viable outcome and would like to withdraw it. I'll actually just go ahead and strike it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, because there wasn't a consensus. —S MarshallT/C 14:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, as closer. My mistake I should've closed it as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, since the WP:NFO status still being contended. Thanks Alalch, I appreciate the constructive criticism. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus with no prejudice to renomination, as per closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - the closer accepts they made a mistake. Any objection to the closer simply rectifying that mistake and striking their original close? I can't see the value in bureaucracy here. St★lwart111 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
