- 2020–2022 Pakistani political crises (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD should have been closed as "delete", "redirect" or "merge".
The closer, Star Mississippi, erred in merely counting numbers and not weighing the opinions offered in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Had they done so, they would have recognized that all of the seven "keep" opinions did not address the reason for deletion at all, which made them pure votes, which are discounted in assessing consensus.
The one "keep" opinion that made something even resembling an argument was that by Ainty Painty, but their argument was "The mentioned articles are surely connected to each other." This does not address the reason for deletion, which was that it is prohibited original research to connect these supposed crises to each other without sources that make this connection - and Ainty Painty did not respond to a query to that effect. For that reason, their opinion, too, cannot be given weight in assessing consensus.
With all "keep" opinions discounted, the closer should have recognized that there was consensus to not keep the article, which would have led them to close the AfD as "delete", "redirect" or "merge". My personal practice is to close AfDs that are split between "delete" and "merge" as "redirect", which allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything should be merged. Sandstein 16:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been several political upheavals taking place at roughly the same time:- at the national level, the motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister and his replacement (28th March - 11th April), which involved a constitutional crisis that has its own article; and at the local level, the resignation of the Punjabi Chief Minister and his replacement (28th March - 6th April); and two other motions of no confidence in other Chief Ministers. If these upheavals are connected, I don't see how.If I take the absolute most charitable view of the "keeps" that I possibly can, I can think of them as saying we need a high-level navigational article to help readers make sense of simultaneous events in Pakistani politics. And if I stretch that interpretation as far it'll go, I get to "List of Pakistani political crises in 2022", which roughly fits into WP:CLN --- in other words, being super-kind to the "merge" side, I can see a policy basis for what they're saying.On the other hand, where that leads is to a merger where the final article has a different name and completely different content. That's functionally identical to a "delete", I think. So I can't really understand that any differently from Sandstein's understanding.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The article is, as it stands, a list article. It doesn't need to have the word "list" in it to be a list article as far as I know. I think the point Sandstein is making is that the article doesn't meet WP:LISTN because it hasn't been "...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." And the discussion didn't seem to turn up any such sources. But LISTN only says that such sourcing is "One accepted reason...", not that it is required. The idea of merging into 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis makes sense to me. That article is lacking far too many details. So basically keeping it as a list article or merging it (pretty much as-is, not much removed) all seem like reasonable outcomes that were supported in the discussion. Deletion most certainly didn't have consensus--it barely had support. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do feel the closer could have found consensus to rename it back to 2022 Pakistani political crises. But that would have been a bit of a stretch. I also feel the closer should have suggested an RfC or other way forward to resolve the issue. NC in this case isn't really leaving us in a good spot IMO--very few people felt that the article, with the title it has, was the right place for us to be. Not a great thing to default to without a suggestion of how to move forward. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin comment aware of and fine with this DRV as I know my decisions aren't foolproof. I was willing to relist this, and I nearly did before close, given there was an apparent glitch between 4/30 and 5/2 relists, but I do not see a consensus emerging out of that. Not going to formally endorse it and hold up any consensus here. Re to Hobit's comments, I can see that. It's not something I'd thought about before but will definitely keep it in mind going forward for complex closes. Star Mississippi 23:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No consensus. See WP:RENOM for advice, a better nomination would have been better, but before renominating ensure that WP:ATDs do not exist. If merge was one the table, and consensus is not there, then AfD has to be closed as “no consensus” because AfD can’t enact a merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, could you clarify "AfD can't enact a merge"? As far as I can see it can and often does.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- By “enact a merge” I mean “actually perform and complete a merge”, in the face of complexity and objections at the target article.
- AfD can declare a “consensus to merge”, which then carries the authority of WP:Consensus, not WP:Deletion policy.
- Was there a consensus to merge? No.
- A rough consensus to merge? That would be an aspirational call. Even if the closer immediately performed the merge, they are immediately revertable per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
- At best, a rough consensus to merge should mean the closer refers the case to WP:PROPMERGE.
- Was there a consensus to “redirect and allow possible merging from the history”? No, I do not read that from the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid close by Star Mississippi when there was in fact No Consensus. The appellant would have closed it differently, and that would have also been a valid close by Sandstein. It isn't worth arguing over which close would have been better, but this was a clearly valid assessment of (no) consensus by the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Star Mississippi's close as legit and valid. I skimmed through the discussion and seriously there's no consensus. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn At the very least, there's a clear consensus from the contributions that the article is mistitled. The status quo ante of no consensus is not a reflection of the discussion. There was no refutation of arguments regarding a lack of sourcing that linked the events discussed in toto as crises, that is, no refutation of the problems of SYNTH in the article. If it cannot be demonstrated that policy has not been breached, a !vote to keep cannot be considered. Discerning between delete and merge is open to interpretation, I favoured delete, but it is one or the other, not no consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You start by implying a rename could fix it, but end by saying it was either delete or merge. That sounds like no consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not relitigating the AfD, I'm summarising the discussion. The vast majority of contributors identified multiple problems with the article, hence "at the very least". However, the most significant issue, left unrefuted, was sourcing to justify the article. No amount of keeps that fail to address a fundamental policy breach can produce a no consensus result. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
