|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
A supervote is a term used on Wikipedia, often in a deletion review or move review, in reference to a close that allegedly reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion. It is usually used as an accusation that this is the case, carrying the implication that the closer should have entered the discussion as a participant instead of closing, and that the close should be overturned.
Supervoting vs "admin's discretion"
Advice to editors decrying a supervote close
It should be noted that XfD discussions are not really polls. If an AfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. See also Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus
Advice to admins facing a defective debate
However, an XfD discussion is not an "admin's suggestion box" either. Unless there are serious verifiability or BLP issues, an XfD heavily skewed to one side should not be closed the other way.[clarification needed] One exception would be in FfD debates where our non free content policy is an issue as this is one of the few policies meant to be enforced "prescriptively". If a person feels strongly that the opinions expressed in an XfD are contrary to policy then it is better to comment instead of close. The point raised can help inform the discussion, and this may help someone else to close appropriately.
A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one). An example would be an AfD discussion relisted multiple times with few or no !votes where the closer closes as "redirect" but still indicates that there is "no consensus". It might also apply if an administrator closes an AfD with no !votes as "delete" but offers to restore the article upon request. As an editorial decision, the standard rules of BRD and 3RR apply to the result of such a close so no attempt should be made to "administratively" enforce the result.