I think the page presented verifiable publications of the allegations. The article's title may sound shocking but I think it does not endorse the referenced points of view. ilgiz (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure by default because no argument is made how the closer erred in gauging consensus. (Which was not difficult to do correctly, given that the AfD was nearly unanimously for deletion.). Sandstein 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sandstein, DRV does consider other errors apart from mistakes in gauging consensus. On rare occasions, closes have been overturned because the consensus was simply wrong. However, I agree that it is very hard to criticise JForget for closing this discussion in that way and I feel the outcome was correct. So I endorse this appropriate close.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Seems a reasonable close to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though I'd note that many of those involved felt that there was mergable material there and it therefor should be userfied upon request so that merging can happen. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus was quite clear that the title was hopelessly biased and loaded, and this viewpoint was not an unreasonable one. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – proper close and judgment of consensus by admin. But remember, in Soviet Russia, consensus gauges YOU!MuZemike 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per S Marshall. A closer is required to close according to policy, and if not, they are in error. They are not closing in accordance with policy if they close based on arguments that are against policy--because it is their duty to reject them, or against consensus without justifying it by correct policy. Therefore it will often be possible to argue here that a close is wrong based on the facts of the matter and the applicable policy. in this particular case the arguments were good, the consensus was right, the closing admin needed to give no special discussion because the consensus was obvious, and he did well. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Encourage userfication, and re-working to recreate under a title with more respect to WP:NPOV sensitivities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
