I'm rather puzzled by the state of this AFD. Here we have a procedural nomination that has been procedurally re-opened for the benefit of nobody in particular.

The only support for deleting was "*Delete fails WP:BIO for actors. --Tim1988 talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)" Whether Tim1988 actually familiarized himself with the content before commenting is irrelevant, because his is clearly the minority view.

I suppose if we wanted to, we could keep it open for a hundred days and still never reach a consensus whether to keep or merge the damn thing, though it wouldn't really matter, as AFD is not the place to decide that (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD), nor for resolving content disputes. AFD is for deciding whether to delete a certain set of revisions at a certain article title, and ss yourself admitted, this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, so why the hell did it get reopened? — CharlotteWebb 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Because if a closing admin decides the consensus is "merge", then the merge is a decision to be carried out, not a suggestion. Likewise, if an admin decides the decision is "keep", then the matter is settled (unless someone feels like starting a merger discussion all over again on the talk page, but it would probably be dismissed given the AfD reuslt). Those of us who voted did so because we desired a decision one way or the other. Your closure would have ensured that such a decision was never reached.

Nor do I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD says what you think it does; while it does say a "merge-or-not-to-merge" discussion is best held on the article's talk page, that does not change the fact that once an AfD is started and any meaningful debate begins, it must be allowed to continue until an admin makes a decision. Also, quoting from Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions: Closing decisions are subject to review and may be reopened. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought. -- Aaron 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I most emphatically did not say it had a snowball's chance. I said that if all the people discussing it were unique editors in good standing, then it would have a snowball's chance. The very fact that a large fraction of the editors dealing with this whole cluster of subjects are not uniquely idenfiable means that there is considerable uncertainty as to what the consensus actually is. Since IPs are generally disregarded during an AfD, allowing the process to run neatly eliminates any possibility of "vote"-stacking. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply