Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Phil Mason (2nd nomination)

can you please elaborate a little bit more on the "clear absence of a consensus to delete"? At least to me it's not that clear, as there are 7 delete votes and 6 keep votes. w umbolo  ^^^  08:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote to be decided by a slim majority, but is generally requires something along the lines of 2/3 in favor of a proposition. In this case, one of the votes to delete is a "weak" delete, with part of the rationale for deletion being struck after the fact, making the expression of support nearly a tie.  bd2412  T 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If 2/3 is required to delete, then 2/3 is also required to keep. So there's no consensus to keep either. w umbolo   ^^^  13:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a no consensus. Both sides made excellent guideline-based arguments and there is no overwhelming count on either side. -- Green  C  14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * a consensus is required to change the status quo ante. Can you see how it would be logically impossible to simultaneously require 2/3 favoring both outcomes for anything to happen? bd2412  T 16:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This notion of !vote-counting algorithms is kind of against the guidelines no? Shouldn't you also be looking at the strength of the arguments? Why were the delete votes ignored? -- Green  C  16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to why you would think that. If they were ignored, the close would have been a straight "keep" rather than "no consensus". Obviously, then, the delete !votes were not ignored. They just didn't state a case any stronger than the keep !votes. bd2412  T 16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It closed straight keep, not no consensus. -- Green  C  17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake - fixed. Thanks. bd2412  T 18:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The close still seems to be saying there is "an apparent consensus to keep", which there clearly is not, so maybe that should be changed as well. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarified, but this is an awful lot of ink to spill over the formalities of a discussion close with no change to the ultimate outcome of the page being kept. bd2412  T 18:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Than you. Can understand how one might be thinking NC and 'kept' being the effect. Guess it only matters for future AfD showing previous consensus. -- Green  C  19:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)