Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Charles Alexander (defensive tackle)

No Consensus??
Okay, I'll bite... how is this a proper "no consensus" close?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well apart from argumentative weight, the keep !votes were in a numerical minority. How would you have closed it? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My close If I had closed this, I would have closed it as Keep for the following reasons: That's what I would have done, methinks.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Of the three editors taking the position of delete two of them provided as thier only reason that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE.
 * 2) One of those provided only a link to the essay on Athlete, so it's really not anything "new" that the other two didn't provide--no opionin, no discussion-just a position.
 * 3) The Abe Lincoln argument supports that Athlete is inclusionary and not exclusionary, so the general notability guideline can "trump" that argument.
 * 4) The high number of sources (some local, some national) appear to support that there is significant widespread coverage of this subject.
 * 5) All taking the keep position gave specific reasons why GNG was met and that Athlete does not apply.
 * 6) Since each of the 4 keeps specifically argued against the reasons given for deletion, and only one of the delete positions responded back, that conveys to me that the "keeps" have it.
 * 7) On a sheer "vote-count" (which AFDs are not) the "keep" votes were actually in the majority:  There were 3 deletes and 4 keeps.
 * 8) Further, the delete positions did not adequatly overturn arguments for the keep positions which leads me to believe that consensus has been met on not just a vote (preliminary indicator at best) but on the arguments themselves and the lack of responses to the arguments.
 * WP:ABELINCOLN isn't a game changer. It is an essay that you seem to have written. I happen to disagree with just about every word of it. It is entirely valid for people in an AfD to say "Delete: fails WP:ATH" and in this case I gave quite a reasoned opinion about why that apparently cursory argument is quite valid. You might strongly think that the keep arguments were better in this debate, but the delete arguments were certainly valid and there wasn't overwhelming strength of arguments or numbers on either side, so no consensus was absolutely correct. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it fun to disagree? Yes, I started the Abelincoln essay primarily because I was tired of people using the Athlete argument as an exclusionary tactic when it is obviously written as an inclusionary guideline.  Athlete itself is a part of a guideline, not a policy--and it specifically references WP:NSPORT for more detials, which is (wait for it) an essay.  That means to me that there's room for discussion amongst Wikipedians.
 * Even stepping back, I have to look at the argumentation and the positions of each person in the discussion and conclude that the discussion was stronger to Keep than to No Consensus.
 * Oh, and of course you and I would (or at least could) disagree on the closing because we took opposite points of view within the discussion. Hey, I'm always right--just ask me! :)  I'd like to hear a third party comment so that I can learn more about how AfDs are closed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)