List of British monarchy records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A no-consensus closure, effectively a decision to keep the article, can hardly be justified considering the strength of arguments or even the mere number of votes. While the seven people arguing for deletion (and two suggesting a merger) pointed to policies, guidelines, severe WP:OR issues and lack of coverage in reliable sources, the five people who favored keeping the article merely said things like: "some trivia is useful and interesting." In fact, one of the five who favored keeping the article, a significant contributor to the said article, admitted that the article consisted of original research, said he or she would continue to violate OR across Wikipedia, and was indefinitely blocked for it. Simply put, I do not see which keep arguments outweighed the delete arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As closing admin, I felt this was a borderline case. While I agree that the balance of the discussion favored deletion I don't think there was a clear consensus. I don't see a compelling reason to overturn the close, but would not object to another admin doing so. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close is within discretion. Keep arguments aren't great, but trivia issues isn't either. IMO this is pretty much a straight up-and-down "is this a good article to have around" given it meets WP:N. There isn't consensus on that issue. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close is within discretion. Some of the Keep arguments are actually decent, including the ones that cut through the WP:OR issue by finding sources, and many of the delete !voters don't go into any depth, but rather categorise the article as trivia or crufty. The policy's clearly not on one side here (disregarding for that one strong keep !voter, joj!) SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse to be honest the arguments for keeping are deleting are both rather subjective, deciding whether something is trivia or indiscriminate information involves a large amount of judgement, even though there is support in policies and guidelines for deleting those. Given that opinion was pretty evenly divided I don't see a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse not only as a valid exercise of closer discretion but as the most reasonable close, with good arguments both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld geography (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to properly merge it into Discworld (world), but I would rather have the original information. Serendipodous (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The gist of the AfD discussion was that the content, while not suitable as an encyclopedia article, would certainly be valuable reused in some other context. So, I can't see any reason not to restore the history under the current redirect and let it be reused. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, if you re-use the material in another wikipedia page, see WP:COPYWITHIN for how to provide proper attribution. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect with an undelete seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect lightly contested AfD, not enough for an article but no problem on my end with a redirect/history restoration. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I need to do anything? Serendi^podous 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to wait for the listing to be up for a week and an admin to close it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Redirect - No reason to prevent redirect or merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and redirect to Discworld (world) per the reasonable request of the nominator. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]