The article was deleted even though there was no consensus within the deletion discussion for deletion, in fact, there was a plurality of discussion in argument for keeping the article. The article is that of a notable figure who is receiving active news coverage. It must be noted as it is relevant that there is a municipal election in the next week for this subject and it is likely that to be a potential motivation. STLPublicI (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion review has been fixed. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has been notified as the nominator had not done so. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well-argued close of a discussion with a surprising number of "keep" !votes coming from editors with only a handful of edits under their belt. More than a whiff of UPE... --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (I voted to draftify in the discussion), clear case of WP:NOTAVOTE, keep arguments were badly made and several were not cognisant of policy. I am a bit iffy on whether the closer supervoted a redirect close rather over a draftify one, but it’s not that big of a deal. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone decided to take this to draft anyway but I do feel the redirect is necessary. I would certainly acknowledge that drafting had a stronger case in the discussion, just that a redirct is a stronger reflection of how the community likes to resolve this kind of thing when there could be an imminent change of status. SpartazHumbug! 16:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow history to move to draft at anyone's request. Maybe she meets the GNG, but none of those keep arguments really showed how. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as:
A valid close after the discussion and the arguments.
The usual result of deletion arguments involving candidates for public office:
Candidates for office are not considered to satisfy general notability based on election coverage, only sometimes on pre-election coverage.
This does not appear to have been a case of pre-election coverage.
I did not take part, but would have !voted to Delete if I had taken part.
Endorse Very well-reasoned close. (Note I participated in the discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An appropriate close under the circumstances. Admins can and absolutely should consider the relative understanding of policy of participants in the discussion, and give less weight to those participants with a more tenuous grasp of the policies being applied. BD2412T 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Article was redirected, not deleted. It is open to editors to change between different varieties of not-delete closures on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see my endorse here is surplus to requirements so I'm just noting I'm glad the closer explained their reasoning. A redirect without further rationale would not have seemed satisfactory to many participants. Thincat (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be really embarrassing when a mayor of a major american city doesn't have a wikipedia page because of your outdated rules. Better push up those glasses, they might fall off your nose. Lenin3 (talk) 17:34 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
