Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors (2nd nomination)

A 2:1 margin is generally accepted as constituting consensus
Hi. I very rarely question AfD closures but in this case I think I need to point out that the delete !votes have it by more than a bit. The margin is 2:1. If both sides are making arguments grounded in WP:PAG, then by any reasonable measure that looks like a consensus. If it's not, then I think we are going to have to redefine that term and look at a lot of other discussions that may have been wrongly closed. I respectfully request that you reconsider your close. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, and even if it was a 50/50, there is still, per WP:NOTVOTE, the argumnets themselves to consider. Far from being—imho, of course—"coherent, policy-based arguments," most of the "Keep" !votes tended to be based on various arguments to avoid, predominently revolving around whether they like it or personally find it useful or just harmless. Compared with this, most (not all—there are certainly some that are mildly cringeworthy) "Deletes" were based on WP:NOT, which is policy. I say nothing as to any...WP:BLUDGEONing that may have occured either. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 14:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The arguments consideration point would have been easier if people hadn't just cited their previous AfD argument and actually re-given it. So the base !vote count was 6:11, then you get anywhere between 3:6 and 5:9 when considering specifically made arguments (Additionally, obviously delete had quite a few duplicates, so determining level of reasoned argument vs pile-on is a little tricky there) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to revisit my close, but of course you're very welcome to take it to WP:DRV. In this case, it's clear that many editors (including a majority of those participating in the AFD, though not a 2/3 majority) believe that this list offends WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They could be right, of course, though it doesn't fit neatly into any of the examples provided at that link. Another sizable contingent of editors feel that it does fulfill a purpose consistent with what Wikipedia is (as distinct from what it is WP:NOT). It comes down entirely to interpretation of our core content policies, and it's clear that there an active disagreement between large segments of editors on that issue (I explicitly disavowed the comments of User:Doncram to the effect that this was somehow a candidate for a WP:SNOW keep on the basis that there was no merit to the delete !votes). In those circumstances, and also considering the extent to which this AFD was a straight re-litigation of the prior one (which also closed as no consensus), I don't see how it could be said that there was a consensus for deletion. But DRV may well disagree with me on that issue. Steve Smith (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve for your reply. While absolutely respecting that your close was good faith, I do think that absent a very compelling argument from the minority, a 2:1 margin is almost always called consensus in these kinds of situations. See you at DRV. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's funny, I wondered about requesting a DRV because the close should have been a clear Keep, based on the quality of arguments. I thought the closure was meant to be compromising and diplomatic, while being direct and harsh about the awful quality of deletion arguments would have been merited. Please notify me if there is a DRV. --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

DRV Called - Link. Pinging: Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)