- Woke Mind Virus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Communicated with the closer user:Ganesha811 prior to posting this comment here for deletion review. The closer respectfully disagrees, but has not posited any specific evidence or points to bolster their reason for interpreting the "consensus" as they did beyond stating, "I appreciated your reasoned arguments in favor of keep, but after re-reading the linked policies and considering the !votes for deletion as well as those explicitly for merge, I felt that a merger which retained large parts of the material reflected the overall consensus."
The page Woke mind virus in fact had dozens of sources that were reliable and clearly and unambiguously separated the word "Woke mind virus" out as distinct from woke. More importantly for this deletion review, I feel that the largest body of consensus, both in terms of !votes as well as most importantly in terms of WP policy arguments, all pretty clearly favored a Keep close of the AfD. This is my first time ever requesting a AfD that closed in a manner that I feel was inconsistent with the apparent consensus to be reviewed. It seemed that most recently too near the time of close even more Keep !votes had been emerging, and therefore the close was both premature and not representative of the actual consensus as I understood the varied arguments and commentary. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Policy gives a closing admin a fair amount of discretion in picking a viable ATD over deletion, even when views for the Merge/Redirect option don't receive a rough consensus. Policy gives a closing admin no leeway in picking Merge as an alternative to Keep, when there's no consensus to do so. Even if we view all Delete !votes in this AfD as implicitly supporting a merger - a big stretch of interpretation - there still is no consensus for Merge as the preferred result. I'm on the fence as to whether the closing rationale expresses a supervote, but even if it doesn't, the reading of consensus was wrong, and the close was premature. Owen× ☎ 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on whether you believe merge is a separate option to keep or delete, though. AfD is a yes/no on whether an article qualifies for mainspace - !voting merge is a clear indication that it should not be in mainspace, not a separate category between keep/delete/merge. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but as I said, there was still no consensus against keeping the article in place. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse. Either of a "no consensus between keep or merge" or "keep" closure would have been justified, but that doesn't mean this merge closure was bad. That there is some evidence a subject has been discussed in RS does not perclude a merger; that is the point of WP:NOPAGE. With that being said I would have relisted in this case. Mach61 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep Those arguing for merge substantially present WP:JNN or WP:NOPAGE arguments without support, while those arguing for retaining the page as separate provided appropriate sources, including a WSJ. NOPAGE explains that we can choose not to cover a notable topic in its own page, and is among the weakest of p&g-based arguments, because there's no requirement or expectation that we do so. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (independent of my role as closer): the WSJ article notably conflates the terms "woke" and "woke mind virus" throughout the piece. Rhododendrites and buidhe made related comments during the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (as closer): I've looked back at my close and subsequent comments to Iljhgtn; I do not think my close was a supervote (my words were intended to reflect the overall consensus), but I think it could plausibly be read that way. I'll have to be more careful to phrase my closes carefully in the future. I think that underlying the issue here is that AfD may not have been the best venue to begin a discussion about the article; a merge proposal on the talk page might have been more successful in getting a clear consensus on whether 'woke' and 'woke mind virus' should be separate articles, as consensus is clear that they are (a) notable term(s) that Wikipedia should be covering in some way. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, while I disagree with your close, I don't think it was unreasonable; I think you just gave too equal weight to some relatively weak merge/redirect rationales. It's far from a tragedy if it appears as part of Woke. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that I think the additional content that was added to the Woke page by user:Ganesha811 was well written and was a useful contribution to that article which fairly summarized the Woke mind virus article. I just believe that the sources and policy arguments indicate that that contribution should have been made in addition to a Keep of the Woke mind virus article, not instead of. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist (first preference) or overturn to no consensus (second preference). I don't see a consensus not to keep the article, with policy-based voting on both sides. Delete/merge voters cite WP:UNDUE and WP:NEO, which I believe is reasonably refuted by the keep voters. I feel it is possible for consensus to form with another week of discussion. Frank Anchor 18:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse [involved] - I don't see how you could close this as anything which keeps the article when only one of the keep !voters even acknowledged the chief objection: that it's fundamentally the same subject as woke. Yes, it's notable; as are e.g. "woke mob" and "wokeness" and "wokism", all of which are variations on the same subject, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No action. Deletion discussions boil down to one of two outcomes, namely delete or not-delete. There is no need to raise DRVs to move from one variant of not-delete (such as merge) to another (such as keep). Such a discussion can be taken forward via the article talk page, if needed. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep or NC. I think either of those outcomes meets with the discussion. For the record, if I'd !voted at the AfD, I'd likely have !voted to merge as we really don't need a FORK here. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While the numbers are close, I still find more comments opposed to keeping the article in the mainspace, and there is no obvious error by the closer. The closer does have some discretion to consider ATDs even if there is not a numerical majority for the ATD. While a relist could be possible, there was strong participation and I am not sure if any new information would be added. --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep the consensus is clear to relist or overturn to keep. I think overturning to keep is more supported by the arguments I read at the AfD. 12.18.235.142 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's only contrib is commenting on this deletion review BrigadierG (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, NOPAGE is a perfectly valid argument against retaining a standalone article, and merging was a reasonable ATD. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
