- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
no consensus. This discussion attracted a lot of new and less experienced editors so I am going to give some extra explanation. Nearly all decisions on Wikipedia are made through discussion rather than voting which we call
consensus decisions making. Because of this some Wikipedians call the bolded comment (e.g. keep or delete) a not vote (sometimes shortened to !vote). Since it is not a vote the closer needs to consider the arguments being made for each side and how that matches up to our policies (which are considered very important and have fewer exceptions) and guidelines (which are still important but may have more exceptions). If someone participates and gives a reason that is not supported by our policies and guidelines, it is the closer's job to
weigh comments and give less weight, or even discard, comments that can't be supported. As a closer it is my responsibility to figure out what consensus was reached by participants, or if there was no consensus, not to give my opinion. In fact if I have an opinion about the topic I am not supposed to close it but should instead participate. In this case I have no opinion and am qualified to be a
closer.
With that background out of the way, there is consensus in this discussion that
reliable sources exist to
verify the information in the article. The disagreement, among editors who use a policy/guideline based reason for their participation, is whether this event should be considered
news. Those who suggest the article be deleted suggest that this event is unlikely to have
enduring significance (what is sometimes called the
10 year test). Those who suggest the article be kept demonstrate that there is worldwide coverage of Josh fight by multiple well known reliable sources and suggest that this kind of coverage is exactly what we would expect from a recent event that will have lasting coverage and not just be a meme or part of a short news cycle.
Because both of these positions can be supported by policies and guidelines and because there is a roughly equal number of editors on each policy/guideline backed side there is no consensus in this discussion. This means that the article will stay for now but can be renominated again in the future to find consensus. However I would
strongly suggest a minimum wait of 6-12 months to give enough time for more evidence of lasting
notability (the word we use to describe topics that may have articles) to be shown (or not).
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]