- Phoebe Dynevor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Clear consensus in Afd to delete, not redirect. closing admin claims "I think a redirect accomplishes the desired result which I would have hoped everyone would have agreed with" [5], which is simply a supervote and not consensus. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Closer honored consensus that the article content be removed, and drew a guideline supported conclusion that a simple redirect of a plausible search term would best serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin – The exact same result occurred (i.e. the content is still gone, albeit with a redirect it is still in the edit history), as I mentioned on my talk page already. I note that closing admins are encouraged (and have been for a while) to explain their closes whenever necessary, which I did. I also tried to look at the strength of arguments given, and I thought MichaelQSchmidt made a cogent argument for redirection at the least, not to mention it's common practice to redirect even subjects which are not considered notable. –MuZemike 02:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete". The content is gone. There may be a debate about whether an admin should delete the page before redirecting, or protect the redirect, but that debate need not be had here. Closing admins should be applauded for looking for redirect opportunities where a page is deleted. I should add that a redirect is something that anyone can do at any time. Even if the article was deleted, another editor could have come along and created the redirect. Any objections to a redirection can be taken up at RfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per closing admin's logical, policy-based explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, closing admin's explanation makes sense, fits policy and consensus - as stated above "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete"." Dreadstar ☥ 05:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is a clear case of how AfD is "not a vote"™. Several users argued that the subject of the article was not notable and so the article should be deleted; MQS agrees that the subject is not (yet) notable but suggests a redirect since she is a plausible search term; the closing admin sees that there is a consensus that she is not notable but that a unrefuted, policy-based argument has been made to redirect; he closes as redirect, retaining the history since there is no compelling reason to delete such content absent BLP or copyvio conerns. In many cases redirection is a good alternative to outright deletion and should always be considered by the participants at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, with congratulations to MuZemike, who's once again exceeded my expectations. What an excellent close.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Redirection is preferable to delete, and there is no evidence that the delete !voters considered redirection and no one argued against it for seven subsequent days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Eluchil404. Note specifically that all BLP content left accessible in article history by the redirect is appropriately sourced. SNOW time? Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nothing is lost by the redirect, which the closing admin notes is a plausible search term. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|