The closing admin stated that the consensus was "merge", but the short discussion that occurred showed a clear lack of consensus. Some editors, myself included, felt strongly that the article should remain stand alone. There did not seem to be any clear argument for merging, other than a lack of death and mayhem Juneau Mike (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Paging Rosiestep, the articles creator, to be a part of this discussion. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the closing admin acted in good faith, I don't think there was consensus, nor a compelling argument for the result to be MERGE. Death and/or mayhem are not the litmus test for train accident notability. This accident was caused by a university student in front of a university after a university professor had gone on record to talk about the city trains' safety issues. It's not a small university in a small town... it's the University of Southern California, population 43,000, in the city of Los Angeles, California. IMO, it almost seems wreckless (no pun intended) to NOT have an article on the event. My $0.02. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - only two people voted for merger (and neither really made an argument). There's no way to conclude there's a consensus to merge. Then you're left with people making wild guesses about whether this will have lasting significance or not, but about equal in number, and with no facts to support either contention. So - balanced headcount, policy arguments with unclear basis in fact = no consensus. WilyD 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. Deletion debates can ultimately end in either delete or not-delete. Moving from one variation on not-delete to another can be dealt with on the article talk page — and in practice, most AFD merge outcomes get studiously ignored as nobody is willing to take on the merger. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus Regardless of old statements at various places, in practice AfD discussions do discuss more than one option. In practice WP guidelines for deletion are what we consistently do at deletion discussions, and for some years now we have treated a closure of "merge" as binding (the problem usually then becomes how mush to merge, but that's another matter. Many closers give an indication of that also, and I'd regard it as strong advice, because this usually needs more discussion of specifics than can be given at afd.) The same is true of "redirect". the reason for this is that in the past , redirect and merge closings were wrongly used as what has been sometimes called "smerge", meaning to effectively destroy. This problem was particularly acute over certain types of articles, and Stifler and I have been disagreeing about both this and fiction articles for many years now. The practical consensus about fiction remains very variable (in my opinion depending primarily on the popularity of the fiction among WP editors) and I would not say that my view towards great inclusiveness here has consensus. I try to be realistic. But as for the view that a close of merge or redirect are merely opinion and not a binding close, I think consensus has pretty much come to my position. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus It's simplistic to say that choices in an AfD are a purely polar "delete" or "keep". Whether people actually follow through with the various flavors of keep is beside the point—if it didn't matter how they wanted to keep something, we wouldn't let people vote that way. As for this discussion, DGG is right. !Voters are all over the map; there's no way this could be called consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
