@Britishfinance: Does it make a difference that your keep close edit conflicted with me about to cast a delete !vote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Barkeep49: I was borderline on a no consensus, but I was wary of a supervote and couldn't see the benefit in a 3rd impending AfD here? I would feel that a delete would be too close to a full supervote as while GNG is acknowledged as borderline, the organisation is the creator/governing body of Footy 9s (is notable), and does get non-trivial mentions on Footy 9 articles (which, while not ideal, can sometimes be accepted as GNG per WP:BASIC; hence the WK/K !votes). If I felt the AfD was heading for a delete, I would probably have !voted for a Keep myself (although I also wondered whether a merge with Footy 9 was not also a good/better outcome, and surprised that the nom didn't offer it?). Britishfinance (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's why I asked if another delete !vote would have made a difference. I don't think you can get to a delete consensus (though obviously this is where I landed after doing my own work) but I do think a no consensus close was possible perhaps especially if there was another policy based, and I assure you my !vote would have been policy based :), delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Barkeep49, I mis-read your statement above as saying you were about to “close” the AfD as Delete, when in fact you said you were about to “!vote” Delete (hence my !supervote comments). Certainly, if you had !voted Delete, I would have closed as a NC. Britishfinance (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: This discussion is too close a call for a WP:NAC to be appropriate, and you do not appear to have considered the keep !votes' lack of substance. Please consider withdrawing your close. – Teratix ₵ 02:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Teratix, while the case was borderline, 6 weeks of listing at AfD without attracting any Delete !vote, and all participants being WK/K is not a “too close to call” AfD. My close explicitly acknowledged it was a borderline case, however, the consensus was uniform, and increased over the 6 weeks. Per my discussion above, an AfD close is not a !supervote, and the participants were clear on the borderline nature of the situation and the basis of their !vote (eg having read through them, I could not unilaterally dismiss them per my comments above to Barkeep49 regarding WP:BASIC). Britishfinance (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would have gone for a Merge post the 1st AfD. It is always a big ask of AfD to outright Delete a sports body connected with a notable sport (as some !votes implied); I think the case for a merge was more compelling (and often the rational solution to the use of WP:BASIC per my discussion above with Barkeep49).
- This is a great example of a GA-rated article for Jim and Mary McCartney that had long NC AfDs (lots of passing mentions, but no dedicated SIGCOV on them), but ended up being merged as the rational outcome which was accepted by community consensus. I hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered opting for a merge, but ultimately decided against it because there were multiple target articles (Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup) and the amount of information on AFI that would have been included in both would have been only a couple of sentences at the most; the majority of information would have been discarded. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those arguments are really reasons not to merge (in fact, if there are "multiple" existing articles based on an association who governs the sport for which those articles are based, it should also be a guide that this is not a Delete); I am not sure that you are being fully objective in assessing this AfD, imho Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please retract your assertion that I am not "being fully objective in assessing this AfD" unless you can substantiate it. Also, AFI does not govern the sport the articles cover; that would be the AFL Commission, which is not affiliated with this organisation. (And organisations don't inherit notability from notable events/products they are responsible for). – Teratix ₵ 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A nom having an article for 6 weeks in total at AfD with no support for a Delete, dismissing any desire to consider a Merge (which I do think is a credible solution here), and then listing at DRV to try and get a No Consensus(?), on which basis the article is still kept, does not indicate objective thinking to me (please don't tell me that you are looking for a 3rd relist)? I am sorry about that, but that is how it comes across to me. I have plenty of AfD experience and can sympathize with your position (I have been there), but when my view is not getting traction (at AfD, or elsewhere), I find it better to pause and look for other routes to resolution that people will collaborate with me on. All the best. 14:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)