template:Infobox Fußballspieler ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This template was deleted by User:Bgwhite citing CSD:G6. I have contacted User:Bgwhite to ask for it to be restored, and my request was denied. As I attempted to explain to Bgwhite, what I created was a "substitution only template" which may be used to translate articles from the German Wikipedia to this Wikipedia. This is very similar to Template:Infobox Burg, which was created by Bermicourt for translating pages articles about castles. To make sure it could not be used directly, I specifically wrapped the output in a parserfunction which prevented the template from producing any output if it was not substituted. Hence, it is important to note that what I created is completely useless if it's not substituted. Despite all of this, User:Bgwhite insists that I created to help XaviYuahanda. this is clearly not the case since the template is useless if it's not substituted. I am unable to demonstrate this fact while the template is deleted. the thread where I tried to explain all of this to Bgwhite can be found here. as I stated there, if there is a fundamental problem with this type of translation tool, then we should discuss it at WP:TFD. any deletion of this type of template should be bundled with all the other "shimming templates" (as Bermicourt calls them). Frietjes ( talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, unless it can be shown that another speedy deletion rationale applies. But G6 is only for uncontroversial maintenance, which any contested deletion is by definition not. The stated reason of the template being used to help another user circumvent their ban on another Wikipedia does not fit any speedy deletion criteria.  Sandstein  19:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm the blocked user. I was blocked by an argument, not because of the reason which BGWHITE named. The blockreason was unbelehrbar, that means unteachable. My articles were liked. It's really bad that BGWHITE is telling lies about me! -- XaviYuahanda ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - Clearly doesn't fit any of the criteria listed under G6, so the deletion on those grounds should be overturned. Calathan ( talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I said Frietjes can restore it after the 15th, when the ban was over. User XaviYuahanda has been banned on dewiki 5 times for adding/creating non-notable people to football articles and not listening to advice given to them. They are currently under their second one month ban and it is set to expire on the 15th. The template was created after an interaction between Friejtes and the banned user. The only non-talk pages that link to the template are the ~50 articles created by the user. User stated on their dewiki talk page, that Frietjes "was kind enough to create a BNR template" and has said he wants the template back. I looked at several of the articles and they are about footballers who haven't played a pro game yet. It appears the user's intention is to copy the articles to dewiki after their ban is done. A notice was placed on the dewiki admin board by another user that talks about XaviYuahanda's actions on enwiki. I don't understand why this template, which hasn't been around for several years, has to be restored now for a banned user who wants it back. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Look at your disc -- XaviYuahanda ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Bgwhite, if Frietjes explanation is true, then the template has nothing to do with what XaviYuahanda is doing. XaviYuahanda seems to be writing German articles, and transcluding the template into them expecting it to produce an infobox in German. However, Frietjes says the template only works if it is substituted, and that it produces an infobox in English that would be useless to what XaviYuahanda is doing. You are basically accusing Frietjes of being a liar and acting in bad faith, but have presented no evidence I can see of that (I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted template to know what it actually does). Without being able to see the template, my assumption is that Frietjes is acting in good faith, that his template does what he says it does, and XaviYuahanda linking to a template with that name expecting it to do something different is completely unrelated to why Frietjes made the template. If you truly believe that Frietjes made the template to help XaviYuahanda and lied to you about why he made it and what it does, then you can take that up at somewhere more appropriate like ANI. However, even if that were true (and again, I'm assuming it isn't), that still wouldn't justify deleting the template under G6. Calathan ( talk) 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Calathan, why can't you assume good faith? You instead assume I'm evil. Thanks. Frietjes didn't know the user was blocked when she created it. She thought she was helping somebody. I'm not accusing her of anything. I even told her I'm not accusing her of anything. Egads. The user is creating the infobox in German. The infobox appears in English, but they read English. They know if the infobox is right or not before they transfer the article over. I'm now being threatened with ANI, Frietjes has cut me off, Calathan thinks I'm evil person that calls everybody a liar and a banned user gets their way... all over waiting a few days. I'm done. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Bgwhite, I'm not threatening you with ANI (I was suggesting you could take Frietjas to ANI), and I don't see how anything in my statement could in any way imply I thought you were evil. In my mind, there are two possibilities here:

• Frietjas created the template for his own use, XaviYuahanda tried to use it as well but used it incorrectly, you mistakenly thought Frietjas created it for XaviYuahanda, and you deleted it as under speedy criterion G6. In such a case the template should be restored because G6 clearly doesn't apply.
• Frietjas created the template for XaviYuahanda, you noticed that XaviYuahanda was blocked and deleted the template citing G6, and Frietjas then deceived us by implying here that the template was for his own use and had nothing to do with what XaviYuahanda. In that case the template should still be restored since G6 still clearly doesn't apply, but you should also do something about Frietjas deceiving us (such as starting an ANI discussion).

In neither case are you in any way evil. You seem to think the second scenario is what happened. All I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that supports the second scenario over the first, and that I don't think G6 applied to the template regardless of which scenario actually happened. Calathan ( talk) 00:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Calathan Frietjas contacts XaviYuahanda on the 4th about not using the German template because it was showing up on her reports. Frietjas creates the template on the 5th. I notice it on the 6th and I comment out sections of the template on articles in XaviYuahanda's space that were showing up on my report. XaviYuahanda reverts. On the 7th I leave message on their talk page. XaviYuahanda responds by saying they need and use that template.

Note, you said, "You are basically accusing Frietjes of being a liar and acting in bad faith", thus I was being evil.

FYI... Frietjes is a she and you keep saying "he". Bgwhite ( talk) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

In that sentence you quoted, I wasn't suggesting you were acting in bad faith, but that your statement would mean she was. I thought you were acting in good faith, but in my opinion possibly mistaken. Also, apologizes to Frietjes for calling her "he". I should have looked at your user page more closely before choosing a pronoun. Calathan ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Send to TFD. If a deletion is contested it is by definition not uncontroversial, but I struggle to understand the relevance of having a German-language template here on the English Wikipedia. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The logic for a German-language template here on the English Wikipedia is simple: it saves hours of time manually converting all the fields and data into English when transferring articles over using what I think is called a pivot table so it displays like the English template. However, the German template should not stay here longer than is necessary, but be automatically replaced by its English equivalent. This is very neatly done with Template:Infobox Berg by a bot, so everyone is happy. I'm not sure if Frietjes can do that, but great if she can. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. (1) The existence or otherwise of this template is irrelevant to whether or not some user has been blocked or banned. (2) There is an obvious need for this and similar templates to translate WP:FOOTY articles from de:wp to en:wp, given the large volume of articles there on German football and footballers. (3) Sandstein is correct that G6 is not a valid reason for deleting this template, and that no other speedy deletion criterion applies. -- NSH002 ( talk) 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G6 never applied. And, on the merits, this seems a useful template. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - obviously controversial, so G6 doesn't apply. Refusing to undo G6es is always the wrong decision, and turns an "oopsie" action into a "bad administrating action". Wily D 09:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ferdinand Ashmall ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This seems to me a clear case of a closer putting their own opinions before those of the majority. Yes, yes, we all know it's not just about numbers voting, but nine keeps against five deletes? Come on, that's a clear consensus to keep; no consensus at the very outside. If a closer can discount this level of support for keeping and just decide to delete anyway then what on earth is the point of having an AfD discussion in the first place? Incidentally, I think I've only brought one other case to deletion review in all the years I've been here - two in one day is pure coincidence and not a campaign against deletion! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You say you recognize AfDs are not votes, yet your entire rational above is a naked appeal to a justification of numbers rather than strength of arguments. No one supporting the article managed to provide the significant sources required to demonstrate notability, as I stated in the closing message. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

That is just your opinion, just as it was other editors' opinions that it did demonstrate notability. And some of those editors were very experienced. It's up to a closer to judge by what others have said and yes, to take into account how many have said it (no, it's not just about numbers, but claiming numbers aren't significant is ridiculous), not to put forward their own "super-opinion" and effectively discount all those that disagree with them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Frankly, for all your experience on Wikipedia, I'd expect better than "it's obviously notable" as a argument, and seniority carries no weight in argument validity either way. As for "super opinions", I presented no novel reason for deletion that was not expressed in the AfD itself, so an accusation of "super opinion" seems unreasonable. I'd ask if you can find any specific way my actions have disagreed with the deletion guidelines for admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I made no comment about "seniority". My point is that the opinions of experienced editors are valid enough not to be simply dismissed. We've been here a long time. We know how Wikipedia works as well as you do. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion, clearly a closing admin super !vote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore The actual participants at the AfD in question considered the issues raised by the closer and rejected the proposition, seeing the sources as conferring notability per WP:GNG. All the closing admin has done is disregard the actual discussion, put his thumb (and other body parts) on the scale, and decide that his vote is all that counts; the actual consensus lost by one vote to zero. This blatant disregard of actual community consensus should be overturned. Alansohn ( talk) 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Several participants in the discussion assessed the sources and thought they were sufficient to confer notability, while other participants assessed the sources and thought they were insufficient to confer notability. Arguing to keep based on sufficient sources and to delete based on insufficient sources are equally strong policy-based arguments, so each such !vote should have been given equal weight in closing the discussion. There were at least as many people saying the sources were sufficient as saying they were insufficient, so the discussion should have been closed as keep or no consensus. That the closer thought one side was right and the other was wrong should not have been considered in deciding the close, as it is the participants' assessment of the sources that matter, not the closer's (though of course he could have !voted instead of closing the discussion). Calathan ( talk) 18:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I was certainly surprised by this outcome. While I can see that there were arguments on both sides, I would have expected rule 4 "When in doubt, don't delete" to apply here. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep I took some time looking at the sources [1] has enough details by itself to support an article. I honestly don't understand the "significance" argument being made by the closer (sources aren't significant, sources aren't in significant depth, topic isn't significant?). Meets GNG and would take a really strong consensus to delete. That plainly wasn't in existence here. Hobit ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. In cases where experienced editors disagree in good faith whether certain sources are sufficient for notability, that is in most cases a matter of judgment and not something that can be resolved clearly by applying a policy or guideline. Because the closing admin has not made clear, in this case, why their appreciation of the sources is unambiguously correct in terms of a specific policy or guideline (as would be the case, e.g., if the sources at issue were all obviously unreliable), they have not shown why their closing statement is not in fact a "supervote", that is, an opinion disguised as an appreciation of consensus. If that supervote is treated as an opinion among others, I can't find consensus one way or the other, given the poor quality of many opinions made on both sides.  Sandstein  19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Largely agree with you, but I'm unclear what makes the keep !votes particularly weak. Generally "here's some sources" is a pretty strong !vote when the sources are non-trivial. What am I missing here? Hobit ( talk) 03:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Several "keep" opinions broadly asserted the existence of sources without explaining which sources they considered relevant. The DRV nominator made an argument based on asserted inherent notability, which I would have discounted as in the case below. On the other side, there was also an incomprehensible "delete" opinion that went "I personally would not trust the word of the church on this"; I would have discounted that also.  Sandstein  13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• As I have said in the DRV below, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is perfectly valid for an editor in an AfD discussion to opine that the subject of the discussion is notable and it is perfectly valid for that opinion to be based on the fact that the subject is one of a very small group, since such a fact is very often taken to confer notability in and of itself. We are not bound by set-in-stone policy and guidelines, and those that exist are mutable depending on consensus of opinion. It is never valid for a closer to dismiss opinions if enough of them agree. That would be wholly against the spirit of what we do in this project. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's part of the described DRV procedure to discuss with the closing admin before listing here. Can the nominator explain why he/she chose not to do this? Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In my experience closers who are challenged about their closure invariably just say "I stick by it" or words to that effect and do not enter into any further discussion. The closer in this instance has already said as much. I'm not sure of the value in challenging their closure when they've already expressed their opinion in closing, especially when the opinion is as clear-cut as it was here; taking direct to DRV is more productive. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The above comment makes me sad, for a couple of reasons. I get queried about closes all the time. Sometimes I stand by my close (especially if the query sounds like somebody who didn't get their way just taking another whack at the argument). But, if I think there's a reasonable argument that my close was in error, I'll typically just revert myself and let somebody else re-close it. I think (or, at least, hope) most admins have a similar policy. I am concerned about your choice of words. The interaction should be a conversation, not a challenge. Challenge implies combat. What we're looking for is collaboration. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I think if you look at the closer's actual words in the closure you will see what I mean. Someone who ignores pretty much any opinion that doesn't match his in his closure isn't likely to agree that his closure was wrong. And please note that I am an admin myself - I do understand very well how Wikipedia works and I always strive for collaboration, but I've also been here long enough to read between the lines and to realise when I'm likely to be flagellating a deceased equine. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. The closing comment makes clear that the closer simply differs with the expressed consensus as to the weight to be given the sources cited. That at least approaches being a supervote, but, more important, is left unexplained by the closer. If the opinions of so many experienced users are to be rejected, more than a pro forma explanation should be required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - consensus is not clear and there were some good sources brought up. The source added in the last comment before closure is a good argument for notability. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. Essentially per User:Sandstein above. Some of the keep votes are weak, but others do bring sources to the table and there doesn't seem to be a consensus that they are insufficient. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC). reply
• Overturn to no consensus - sufficient sources to at least plausibly meet WP:N, about which the discussion is split. Wily D 09:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jean-Pierre Bolduc ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Seems to me a clear no consensus close - three keeps against two deletes. The closer has said he's discounted keep opinions as there is no presumption of notability for ambassadors. However, it is AfD discussion that largely shapes guidelines and AfD discussion is largely about opinion as to a subject's notability. If editors' opinions are going to be discounted in this way then there really is no point in having AfD discussions - we may as well just let admins delete any articles which do not fit within rigidly defined criteria as they see fit. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment: I'd have closed this as a "no consensus" if the "keep" opinions had been based on the coverage of this ambassador in reliable sources – i.e., on his general notability. However, most "keep" opinions instead argued that ambassadors are inherently notable. Administrators are to weigh arguments on the basis of their strength in the light of our guidelines and policies, and our notability guidelines do not extend presumptive notability to diplomats (as they do, e.g., to certain politicians). That is not an oversight, but rather because there has never been consensus to do so, as a look at the guideline talkpage archives shows. A relatively long discussion about this in January 2015 did not seem to reach consensus either. As it is, therefore, projectwide consensus (as expressed in the notability guidelines) does not deem diplomats presumptively notable, and I must therefore give less weight to opinions in local discussions that express a different view. I consequently maintain the view expressed in the closing statement.  Sandstein  16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion, clearly a closing admin super !vote. I am not able to see the article, I am just looking at the AFD. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
• Comment I disagree with the outcome (I think most ambassadors should be considered notable) but otherwise feel that the closer is correct--this is fairly well settled. I'll not urge an overturn because the close was, IMO, within policy and guidelines. But I think it's the wrong result so I cannot endorse. Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Just to be clear A) I've looked at the sources below. They are decent, but not clearly above the WP:N bar IMO. B) I think that keep because ambassador is a reasonable !vote to give less weight to as we've generally agreed that isn't a valid reason to keep an article. I'd have !voted to keep here (sources good enough, I too would rather we keep most ambassadors), but I don't think the close can be said to be outside of discretion. Hobit ( talk) 07:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closers are entitled to apply policy and guidelines with higher weight to debate contributions where the contributions are arguing from a premise not supported in policy. Stifle ( talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That suggests to me the old and discredited Wikipedia is a bureaucracy argument. Notability is not determined by policy, but by discussion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • An AFD is not a raw vote, which can be won by stacking it with non-policy-based votes one way or the other — closing admins are allowed, in fact required, to entirely discount votes that are explicitly not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. A discussion with 98 keeps and just two deletes can be closed as a delete consensus if the deletes are supported by a correct and detailed interpretation of policy, while the keeps are on the level of "keep because I said so" or "keep because Baby Jesus will cry if you don't". Bearcat ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
      • That may be some sort of happy place for deletionists, but it is not in fact what happens in practice and should not in fact be what happens in practice. "Keep because I say so" may not be a valid argument; but an experienced editor saying "keep because common sense points towards notability even if set-in-stone guidelines don't" is. Nothing is set in stone here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I just don't find the "highest level of their profession" analogy to sports figures convincing. The sports figures situation is an anomaly: it's based on the disproportionate (in comparison to their real-world impact) coverage of sports figures. The world's top-level copyeditors, arborists, and diamond cutters aren't seen as inherently notable. I'm not arguing that the consensus about ambassadors is right, just that it's a consensus established by a broad enough argument that it shouldn't be rejected by a single sparsely argued AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Everyone, please re-read the AfD, particularly Bearcat's findings: Bolduc's notability seems to stem not only from mere being an ambassador, but from his humanitarian background before that, and diplomatic status in several countries during the tenure. There's a serious possibility of cultural bias, as there are significant sources about his Senegal career [2]. Maybe all of that does not add up, but when in doubt, the default should be "no consensus", not a supervote. No such user ( talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Could you list which sources you think count as significant coverage toward WP:N? I'm not seeing anything, but I'd be quite pleased to hear WP:N is met. Hobit ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Hobit:: His bio (page 6) in a brochure issued for visit of Canadian GG to Africa.
    • An interview of his given to L'Observateur, apparently
    • His statements during the tenure in Congo
    • His statements concerning visit of Ghanian president to Canada
    • Bolduc helps establish a Trust Fund for Victims of Gender Violence in Ghana
    • Mentioned back in 1986 concerning his work with CIDA
    • Yeah, I will agree that those are bits and pieces, but there are many (I listed only those that appeared more substantive), and the 1st ref taken verbatim really helps establish a decent short article. But this is DRV, not AFD. No such user ( talk) 20:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion I brought forward French-language articles on him and they were dismissed with the comment the ambassadors are basically puppets and all they do is repeat the official line of the government, so articles about them don't count. This is not a valid argument for GNG. - —Мандичка ^YO 😜 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'm not going to "vote" here, because having participated in the original discussion I feel like I'd be just trying to relitigate a decision I didn't "get my way" from, but since I was pinged above I wanted to add some comments for perspective. Even though I voted to keep, I see that I was the only one who based my reasoning on the existence of further sourcing beyond what was already present in the article — every other keep vote essentially boiled down to some variation on "keep because ambassadors are automatically notable", without reference to the fact that (a) Wikipedia does not actually have any such rule, and (b) even the notability claims that we do accept as conferring an automatic keep still have to be supported by reliable sources to actually get the article kept. Meanwhile, several of the delete votes specifically addressed my point about other sources available on Google News, reviewing them and coming to the conclusion that there wasn't enough substance to them. If things had been different, and my comments in the discussion had been signed by someone else while I had been the person assessing it for closure, I would have assessed it the same way: three policy-based delete votes to just one policy-based keep, constituting more than enough for a delete consensus, with three irrelevant keep votes that had to be discounted for lacking a connection to Wikipedia's actual notability or sourcing policies. That's a completely correct and valid close option according to AFD's actual rules. And, of course, it bears remembering that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; if you feel really strongly about it (which I have to admit that I don't), then you do still have the option of putting in the work to write a better article about him than the first one. Bearcat ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore Policy is what we do, not what we say. What we do about ambassadors varies widely. (I would personally prefer we keep them all, and I've argued that for years, but the consensus has not been with me) But neither is the consensus that we delete them all. It goes case by case. Where there is no consensus to delete in a given case, thearticle should be kept. There was no such consensus here. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC. I explicitly reject any notion that merely being an ambassador should be taken as evidence of notability; notability is defined for our purposes by coverage in reliable sources. Two of the "Keep" votes made bare assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE and they were quite properly discounted, but two of them did bring sources to the table that appear to be reliable. The closing admin should have either considered them in the close, or at least explained why these sources were discounted. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC). reply
• Overturn to NC - both as the sources are plausible enough for WP:N + split headcount, and as the argument that "Ambassadors are of sufficient importance that if Wikipedia is to be a serious reference, it must cover them" is a worthwhile one (whether I'm wholly convinced or not, it's reasonable). Wily D 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Diplomats are not automatically notable, absent actually meeting the WP:GNG. Also, the claim that they are at "top-level" of their professions strikes me as obviously untrue: "foreign minister" (or "Secretary of State", in the U.S.) would be the actual top level for the diplomatic service, since that's who ambassadors report to. -- Calton | Talk 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I have to say I am personally firmly in the all ambassadors (or at least, all ambassadors from major nations) are notable camp. However, I appreciate that the weight of consensus is not as yet with me. Had this been a deletion after a clear consensus then I would not have brought this to DRV. However, it was not. It was clearly a no consensus, which should of course default to keep, and thus I believe was a misinterpretation by the closer. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply