Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/EA WorldView

Close rational
Hi. I don't disagree with the no consensus close. But I do want to make one point where if I read your close correctly I may have a respectful disagreement. Having adopted our WP:PAG by consensus, the community has in effect declared that adherence to them is presumptively in the project's best interest. Arguments that call for deviation from those guidelines therefor carry the burden of establishing why an exception is in the project's best interests, not the other way around. To be sure, I support the availability of IAR, and have even made a few such arguments over the years. But once it is conceded that a proposed course of action is inconsistent with PAG, as was the case here, the burden lies with those making the IAR case. With apologies to one of our former presidents, my personal view is that IAR should be safe, legal, and rare. Policy and guidelines aren't set in stone. But neither are they in jello. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful input.  I'm not sure we're that far apart, and I welcome respectful disagreements because I don't enjoy echo chambers.  (Well, usually.  Some of the time.)  I did not set aside GNG lightly, in fact I don't think I set it aside at all.  I indeed felt that a strong argument was made that "an exception is in the project's best interest", but I did not feel that consensus was fully with that argument, nor did I feel the argument was so strong as to over-ride GNG entirely.  There is no "63% delete" option, so I close as no consensus.  I hope that helps, and where I fail to fully/properly explain I apologize.  Anyway, the door is always open.  Yours has always been a voice of superior reason, and if we disagree it isn't because I've dismissed your analysis.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)