- Employsure (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I have no idea how anyone could say there was a clear consensus on this decision. There was no clear consensus for a merge, at best it was no consensus (or alternatively the deletion page should have been left open for another 7 days to get a better idea of consensus), and the dismissal of anyone's view who suggested keeping the article as a "single purpose account" is rude. Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Giving less weight to comments that do not reference policy is fair, and SPAs receiving more scrutiny isn't improper; it's hard to imagine that editors who don't know how to sign their comments (there's a hint on the edit source page) could know Wikipedia policy well-enough to comment. Otherwise, any company/person could just canvass a bunch of people to an AfD, have them stack up votes, and we'd keep reaching "no consensus". Addressing each keep vote (by a SPA) in turn: no reference to policy, inadvertently suggests WP:TNT and makes no attempt to show how the subject is notable (other than by saying "is notable"), your keep vote was the same (no reference to sources or attempt to show notability), ditto, then a sockpuppet, [...] (you get the idea).
- It isn't the closer's fault that all of the keep votes failed to address policy, sources, or make any attempt to actually show notability. Saying "subject is notable" with no evidence is a useless comment, in that it doesn't help prove your point. As HighKing stated,
This isn't a !vote-counting exercise.
- The delete and merge comments made adequate reference to policy, whilst the keep !voters failed to make their case. Closer addressed consensus accurately; it's a toss-up as to whether to delete or merge, but since this DRV requests overturning to keep / relist, that point is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- how refreshing to see a closing administrator not prostrate themselves worshipfully before unsupported claims of WP:ITSNOTABLE, to say nothing of the obvious canvassing and/or meatpuppeting. Simply put, the delete side made their case, the keep side did not. I didn't participate in the AfD and , if I had, I probably would have said to merge. Reyk YO! 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge but with no bar against a new version with better sources being created, preferably via a draft, at some future time if any editor finds proper sources. Jack4567 made a policy based keep argument, but it seems that HighKing's refutation convinced Jack4567, at least for a time. Most other keep views were not persuasive, although the views of Deus et lex had some merit and do address proerp policy issues. Close was correct on the discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments as closer: Although not mentioned in the close (as it can plainly be seen from the face of the discussion), the deletion request was made on June 19, and the discussion was closed on June 30, a period of 11 days, so the discussion was already open for well over the usual seven day period. No discussion is entitled to relisting, certainly not one where an unusually high number of participants have only a handful of edits or have only recently begun editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, in merging the article into the parent company, I took care to maintain the content on the ACCC prosecution referenced in the discussion. The information of significance was therefore preserved, and placed in the context of the supertopic. Any reader coming to Wikipedia to find out about Employsure will find out what is significant about Employsure. BD2412 T 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse And honestly, I'd probably salt the title given the way that AfD went with all of the SPAs involved. A merge was permissible but generous based on the discussion. It's not rude to ignore SPAs when they show up en masse and don't present actual reasons for keeping the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That content was irretrievably promotional from first creation. I can't find a single NPOV revision to revert to. I don't often use emphasis like strong endorse at DRV, but on this occasion I think it's warranted.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - It is common practice to disregard arguments that (1) make no compelling policy-based argument or (2) are from SPAs who appear to have been canvassed on- or off-wiki. The fault was in the arguments for those advocating for Keep, not in the closer deciding to assign less weight to them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the Keep comments largely had no basis in WP:CORP, e.g. bald statements that the subject is notable, statements that the subject is important or well known, statements that the subject has appeared on TV, etc, etc. There was one attempt to argue on the basis of sources, but HighKing did a pretty good job of rebutting that. I don't see any reason to reopen the discussion, it was open for longer than the required period and had plenty of participation. Having a large number of SPAs show up is suspicious and suggests external canvassing, the closer would be entitled to downweight those comments in that case. Hut 8.5 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a reasonable outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Merge was endorsed by only one editor. This is not a reasonable close - consensus is a policy even if some do not agree with it. Either relist or close according to the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A closer's job is to assess consensus and this closer did not. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to the !vote of User:Cunard. However, I did not ignore the comments of User:Coolabahapple: "so a "merge/redirect"... is out of the question?"; and User:Jack Frost: "Per Coolabahapple, it does possibly warrant being skinned and merged..." Based on the totality of the discussion, including the concern by the few non-SPA "keep" voters that discussion of the ACCC prosecution be preserved, merging was the only reasonable close, per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 18:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, i was pleased to see that it was BD2412 who closed this afd as i have found previous closes carried out by them to be, like this afd close, policy based, and sensible. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't let me get a big head, though. BD2412 T 01:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|