BJ Dichter (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I should declare I wrote the article and I also note this was a difficult decision and I acknowledge the good faith decision by the closing admin and the careful explanation provided when I asked about it.

However, I request a review primarily because I think there was no consensus and I therefore disagree with the conclusion that consensus was reached for any outcome. Secondary to that, I think it is unfair that someone voted twice differently (maybe not in opposite directions, but giving the impression there was more delete votes than there was) ; I think there was some "I do not like" in one delete argument and while I see that those arguing for delete were slightly higher in number, I think there was a very compelling explanation of why BLP1E does not apply that nobody arguing to delete addressed that = I am saying the "keep" crowd presented a more policy-driven argument, even if they were in slight minority.

If the philosophy on Wikipedia is "When in doubt, don't delete", was there really no doubt here?

So primary request: it be considered "no consensus" and secondary point that some delete votes should have been disregarded or discounted. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to no consensus There were two basic arguments for deletion and/or redirection: GNG and BLP1E.
  • Claims that BLP1E doesn't apply are reasonable. In particular, evidence was given that he had significant (if local) coverage before the event. And it's reasonable to claim that someone who is a "regular pundit on Fox News", has run for political office, and is chair of a controversial group that's in the news isn't "low profile".
  • Claims that the GNG is met are reasonable. With sources like: [1] (local but purely on him), [2] which has 8 short paragraphs on him at the national level, and brief mentions in international news [3], [4], claims that the GNG is met can't be ignored.

Basically the keep arguments did a solid job of rebutting the the delete and redirect ones. Given the numbers (which were nearly equal) and strength or arguments, it feels like the only way it could be closed is NC. Hobit (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have closed as delete but I don't think we're going to end up there; endorse closure as redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC Per Hobit's analysis, which he beat me to. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I concur with Hobit's analysis, but, in my opinion, it does not require an Overturn. There are reasons to keep, and reasons to delete. We at DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing whether the closer made a reasonable judgment call. The closer concluded that the Delete and Redirect arguments were stronger, and had slightly more !votes. So the close should be left standing, as a judgment call by the closer, and closers should exercise judgment;. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  <involved>This is my first time here, so forgive me if I got this wrong: I assume we all agree we're not reassessing the AfD, we're assessing if it was correct to say there was consensus. The closer didn't say the delete and redirect arguments were stronger, they said there was "consensus" and that is where I think an error was made. The normal English meaning of consensus is general agreement, which is the opposite of what happened in the AfD, the contributors to the discussion really made opposite arguments, and did not convince each other or agree. CT55555 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And I felt the keep arguments were stronger. In any case, both sets were reasonable and I believe there isn't a clear strength-of-arguement or enough numbers to claim there is a consensus. Thus my !vote above. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus <involved>. I have no quarrel with Sandstein's analytical framework – assessing whether there was a consensus to "not keep" and then closing in favor of the ATD – but I don't think the discussion quite amounts to any sort of consensus at all. Discounting a duplicate !vote, we have 5 !votes to delete/redirect/merge and 3 !votes to keep. Since the closer agreed that there were "reasonable arguments on both sides", we're left to close on the numbers, and 5–3 is a rather slender reed to rest a consensus on. In my view, a closure along the lines of "no consensus at the moment; feel free to discuss a possible merger on the talk page" would have better reflected the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There were five editors who supported "delete, redirect, or merge" and three editors who supported "keep". As the closer said that there were "reasonable arguments on both sides", I agree with Extraordinary Writ that when closing on the numbers 5–3 (after taking into account that one editor voted twice in first supporting a redirect and then supporting deletion), is an insufficient consensus to close as "redirect" or "delete". I agree with Hobit's assessment of the strengths of the arguments and conclusion that the "keep" participants' arguments were stronger. The "keep" participants made a strong case that WP:BLP1E does not apply and that WP:GNG has been met. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm sort of stunned the number of those participating in this DRV would consider that AfD to be a no consensus when a majority of participants thought BLP1E applied and made clear arguments to that effect. The argument the keep voters rebutted the other !votes as well is stunning as most of those votes came in late, after the keep !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]