Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Looking at it purely in voting terms, consensus comes out at 8 delete, 5 keep. Cutting out "it just is notable" "it just isn't notable", we come out with 7 delete, 4 keep. Seems to be consensus to me. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse We don't look at these discussions purely in voting terms. The emphatic principle of WP:DGFA is When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say you're a neutral party, but ta for taking the time. Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse, since I participated so much in that debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as a valid reading of strength of arguments. We don't vote on Wikipedia, so the exact number of votes is irrelevant. Both sides have good points, so no consensus is the correct outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Pretty close case here, I might have closed it differently myself. However, the no consensus closure is perfectly reasonable given the debate and does in no way endorse the current status of the article or protect it against subsequent debates in the future. Esentially, no harm is done leaving the article and the administrator made no serious errors in closing, so there's no reason to overturn. Shereth 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure. I could not find a consensus to delete there, and those who know me know that I often look pretty hard for one. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If this were AfD_2, I'd !vote Keep or merge to Baron Herschell, we want this material in our encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus, I'd probably have voted "delete" if I'd been aware of the discussion, but as it is, I don't see any other reasonable way to close this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse discussion properly closed, the fundamental keep argument (that he was - verifiably - a member of a national level legislature) was a good one and the arguments for deletion did not appear to conclusively dismiss it. Guest9999 (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalla_Mor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was "no consensus". All two "keep" votes (as opposed to the four "delete votes) were all newly registered single-purpose accounts. User:Nothariseldon had only edited the AFD. It should have been deleted.Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- the afd was opened on the grounds of notability. In the course of the afd, several sources were provided in support of notability, [1] and [2] for example. Between those two and the other sources provided, notability was firmly established. Just because the keep votes were new users does not mean their votes should be ignored, nor should the strength of their argument. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as a valid strength of argument close. The sources provided establish notability and we don't vote on Wikipedia, so the exact number of !votes is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy to say "discrediting" the arguer discredits their argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there is no harm in closing no consensus when the consensus is unclear or uncertain. DGG (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure, with similar reasoning to that of Umbralcorax. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure Agree with Stifle. Xandrus (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. Contested !vote-counting Kept AfDs should be done by relisting in 6 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or — better yet — one should be prepared to change one's mind when faced with evidence. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TimeSplitters (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Talk page should be archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive TimeSplitters, not deleted, as per other pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. SharkD (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted as the entire project was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If the project really wants it, since it seems to be a step in the "Inactive project cleanup" program, I have no objection to restoring. However, there is no actual discussion on the talk page: one section is a one-sentence reminder that the spelling is CamelCase, two contain generic notices (Project Directory, Wikipedia Day Awards) posted to the talk pages of all WikiProjects, two are offers of help (from User:Serious Cat and User:P00p d0g), one contains a one-sentence claim that all character articles that fail notability guidelines need to be deleted, and one notes that most members have migrated over to the TimeSplitters Wiki. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]