Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The redirect was created by an erroneous page move that was quickly reverted. Although Super Mario Galaxy 2 is known by this name in Korean, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not a Korean-made game, and this name is not mentioned in the article. Super Mario Wii: Galaxy Adventure was deleted for the same reason as this, and the RfD was not closed by an administrator. Mia Mahey (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own close. DRV is not the place to discuss one's case for why a discussion should be closed a certain way, but rather why the close itself was an issue. Looking through the discussion, there was consensus to keep the redirect due to it being an alternative name for the target that was established during the course of the discussion. (Also, this DRV posting could possibly have been avoided if the nominator of the discussion had attempted to reach me about the close prior to posting this DRV discussion, which did not happen; I probably would've stated everything I just stated here, so I'm not sure if that would made any difference to the nominator.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, whatever. For some reason, I didn't see Cogsan's vote until now. I'm going to relist the discussion, and wash my hands of this. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mia Mahey: For what it's worth, and I don't care if this statement ends up biting me in the butt: Pointing out that a close was faulty because the closer is not an administrator is incredibly disrespectful and rude. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments for Keep weren't very policy-based; I think it should have concluded as Delete. Jruderman (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings: Hello @Grayfell:, @Generalrelative:, @Biohistorian15: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jruderman (talk • contribs) 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jruderman: Those attempts to ping will have had no effect, because you didn't include a signature when you posted them. I also suggest that selectively pinging three of the participants in a discussion in which seventeen people took part is questionable. JBW (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no specific critiques of keep !votes are articulated, and none are immediately obvious to me. Obviously, people disagree about how to portray this appropriately, and whether we're doing more harm by having an article than not, but absent a key policy-based objection, this does not present a clear case for DRV to overturn the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, and the close was "no consensus". JBW (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of No Consensus. Sometimes when there appears to be no consensus, the closer does not have an obligation to tease out a consensus by evaluating strength of arguments, and is allowed to conclude that there really was no consensus. I agree with the close, but I am not required to agree with the close in order to find it a valid close.
  • • The history of previous AFDs shows no consensus, and is further evidence that the closer was reasonable in concluding that sometimes no consensus really is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That was a really tough discussion, and given there were calls to draftify and the keep !voters even basically said it needs work, I probably would have tried to move it out of mainspace. That being said no consensus is reasonable and considered. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we need to WP:TNT again, we can do it in another AfD, but nishidani gave good reasoning in the AfD that the past AfDs have generally all agreed in notability. this article, like related Race and Intelligence articles, remains notoriously difficult to write and find consensus on. I see no way we can avoid no consensus again unless we give others time to polish this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while I personally have very strong sympathies for deletion, that's not a reflection of the discussion, which the closer rightly had no option but to interpret as no consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. We could have a good article, but every attempt to construct one meets with deletions of perfectly acceptable, sourced material. The topic is out there, with dozens of reliable sources, but until this ostensible campaign to erase any shape of such an article ceases, they cannot be used. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This is a reasonable interpretation of the consensus from the discussion. I'm not sure I'd fully sign on with Nishidani's argument in that discussion, perhaps because of my own unease about the topic, but it was clearly a policy-based argument and other editors were sufficiently persuaded to concur with it. I think the NC was a fundamentally reasonable conclusion to draw, and certainly falls short of the stiffer standard to overturn. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While it's true that some of the Keep views were weak, I don't see how you could find a consensus to delete there without imposing a supervote. Bear in mind that a "WP:TNT" !vote effectively says the topic meets our notability guidelines, but the content needs rewriting. This is equivalent to a Keep !vote, and should be read as such. I also agree with the closer than an additional relist wouldn't have changed the outcome. Owen× ☎ 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]