Aseleste did a non-admin close that was I felt was inappropriate per their closing statement. I reopened the discussion because I was unaware that even non-admin closures couldn't be reopened by a non-admin, which I still think sounds backwards, but whatever. Sandstein reopened the discussion for that reason. My issue is not necessarily the no consensus close because that could actually be a correct decision, but my issue comes from the use of the sentence, "It is unknown how much effort was put into searching sources, so the argument of WP:NPOSSIBLE cannot be ignored entirely." In a way, that could be considered to be assuming bad faith on not just me as the nominator, but also the participants. While an editor that voted weak keep did say that they only did a passing search, the same was not even close to true for anyone else. WP:NPOSSIBLE can actually be completely ignored without there being any proof of such a statement being true. If the closure is really as no consensus, I am hoping that another editor can do the closure without it being partially based on an unfair statement that has no backing. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close as the most likely/reasonable reasonable outcome of a 2-2 split with multiple relistings, but I agree that an admin should have closed it and that the closing statement was inappropriate. In my mind, NACs shouldn't need to make closing statements: If you have to justify your rationale, it shouldn't be closed by a non-administrator anyways. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in that No Consensus looks like the correct result. I agree that the closing statement doesn't help, and confuses things. The rules on non-admin closes confuse things too. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like endorse/overturn is appropriate here since the nominator's not disputing the outcome but rather the rationale. I don't like non-admin closes, and I agree the closing statement is both mistaken and inappropriate, but the outcome is correct. Out of curiosity I just did my own WP:BEFORE search which didn't bring up any sources that haven't otherwise been found, which would probably put me in the weak delete to delete camp (it looks like it had a run on some cable channels in 2001 and 2002 but didn't get significant coverage, just TV listings, and I parsed a bunch of those.) Therefore, I'm somewhere between a straight endorse, a vacate and reclose, and a relist (for my own sake, to be able to contribute to the discussion.) SportingFlyerT·C17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" is the correct close, but as this is not a clear consensus keep, this should have been closed by an admin WP:NAC (unless no consensus is also an appropriate close for a non-admin.) --Enos733 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hate BADNACs, but I actually don't think it's an inappropriate close per WP:NAC #2: The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. That would seem to allow for no consensus closes where the no consensus isn't a close call, and not only do I think that slipper fits here, the result's not really being challenged by the nom. SportingFlyerT·C21:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(as closer) I should explain my actions per WP:ADMINACCT. So far, there seems to be three issues here:
An notability argument. However, I do not know the extent of wp:before here. I understand WP:AGF, so I do not down or upweight this.
Weak keep I found this on Variety. I'd like to believe that for a film in the internet-era of the late 90s, and starring Michael Ironside would have some coverage.
An notability argument. To this participant, source x1 + wp:npossible is enough for a weak keep. This wp:npossible is explained by the age of the film (low accessibility of sources if they exist) and starring Michael Ironside (notability of a related subject → sources for the film; WP:NOTINHERITED describes notability of a related subject → notability of the subject). Overall, the argument is downweighted since wp:npossible is usually a weak argument, but there are some backing to not ignore it.
Weak keep: In addition to what's in the article through Lugnuts or otherwise, I found this from DVD Review (which appears to have editorial control and other RS hallmarks). I checked newspapers.com and didn't find further reviews, although did find enough passing coverage to imply people were paying attention to it for a few years later. I don't know if 'internet era' is right here; a lot of stuff from around the turn of the millennium has surprisingly little online coverage.
An notability argument. To this participant, source x2 + wp:npossible is enough for a weak keep. This wp:npossible is explained by the age of the film The argument is also downweighted for the same reason as above.
An notability argument. The argument is downweighted, not because I doubt their searches per WP:AGF but because it is a WP:PERX argument, which is a validation of the original argument, making the original argument more likely to be correct, but otherwise does not add anything to it.
I see four possible outcomes:
Relist: Relisted twice. It seem unlikely there will be further participation considering there were no participation after the second relist. Per WP:RELIST, the discussion should not be relisted more than twice generally.
Keep: The keep arguments are weaker.
Delete: The delete arguments are indeed stronger. However, the it is only stronger slightly, which I think is insufficient for a consensus.
No consensus: This is the fallback outcome.
Second issue:
Problem: Special:Diff/1020176299/1020262171 is the original statement. From my reading, it seems to be about wp:npossible not explicitly mentioned in the discussion. The above statement has clarified this a bit. Now it looks like the problem is that the closing statement is interpreted as assuming bad faith.
Response: While I do not intend to do so, the appearance of assuming bad faith should not be ignored. I agree that the statement should either not exist or be lengthened to be more clear. The former seems to be the better option since the closing statement should usually not contain lengthy statements.
Third issue: I do not have an opinion at this time.
Aseleste I can honestly say that in my over 10 years as an editor and as a frequent AfD participant, I have never seen a closer refer to NPOSSIBLE. However, I am not surprised that a non-admin closer that has been an editor since 2019 would use such a thing. I am confused as to why a non-admin is closing a discussion as no consensus when they have a long thought process like the one that you stated. It is also inappropriate for you to explain your actions per WP:ADMINACCT because you are not an admin. SL93 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ADMINACCT totally does apply to NACs. If you're going to stand up and close a Wikipedia discussion then you totally do need to be ready to explain your close. I agree that no consensus was the right close but the closing statement should be revised. I do not agree that that discussion was only closable by a sysop: we have plenty of non-admin closers who could have done an excellent job there.
The problem with NEXIST is that you can't prove a negative. You can't show that no sources exist. All you can do is challenge others to produce them, and if they don't, then we default to assuming that there aren't any.
WP:BEFORE demands that nominators make their own, thorough, search before starting an AFD. Acting like they haven't is an accusation, and it's rude. And that's the problem: no consensus was right but the close caused needless offence because it contained an oblique, implied accusation that was not justified.
The closer should revise their closing statement, preferably right now. They should not be discouraged from closing discussions. But they should consider apologizing to the nominator for unintentional offence.—S MarshallT/C08:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I thought the phrasing of the closing statement was a bit odd/curt, but in absolutely no way was it DRV-tier so. WP:NAC is a somewhat controversial essay with some questionable claims (I noticed recently its "NAC SNOW closes are inappropriate" statement directly contradicts WP:NACD, the relevant guideline), and BADNAC#2's incredibly broad realm of interpretation is "this is a statement anyone can see their argument for in". Other essays giving caution about AfD NACs, such as WP:RELISTBIAS, explicitly support no consensus NACs. I've commented before to Aseleste about the need for caution in close/relist statements, I am quite confident he's found incentive here to take those statements to heart, and I don't think "my reading of this essay" arguments are particularly strong. Vaticidalprophet09:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and re directed to the professional team he played for, all other players on there have active pages, why would one player be deleted for no reason having played professional sport when all other team mates are not deleted. This is a real person, who played professional sport, is notable alumni for 2 schools, has a grandfather and uncle who also played professional sport and ran the London marathon raising money for charity. Lukeyzero (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD was closed correctly based on the input of those participating. Note that the content isn't deleted as such, and can still be seen here. Honestly, based on that sourcing, I am not surprised at the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct conclusion by the closer. I don't understand the cricket notability guidelines, but it appears that no one understands them, so they end up here from time to time; but that is not a Deletion Review problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No error by the closer. Furthermore, I tend to steer clear of the lighter discussions where everyone agrees to redirect just due to the volume of these, but I would also have voted to redirect. SportingFlyerT·C17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
