Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination)

To the AfD closer
I am sorry. The way the text of your close disappeared was not done according to WP:TPO. The DRV closer gave no consensus opinion about the policy problem with your close, because there was no policy consensus to cite. I don't see the antecedent for the word "ill-considered" in the DRV. "[line break inserted 10:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)]" Some of the objection, such as it was, to your close was off-topic such as "consensus can change"...yes it can change, but it hadn't. Ironic how the complaints about process wonkery are all about process wonkery and nothing about proving that your closing was not accurate. Here is another argument against your closing, that WP:NOQUORUM "shouldn't be closed as keep", which unless that is read with an implied WP:IAR, is contrary to what WP:NOQUORUM says. I expect that could provide one, but didn't.   "[line break inserted 10:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)]" Among the relist !votes, I think that some were sincere support for a new AfD possibility. The consensus to allow a new discussion could have been handled by adding WP:NPASR to your close. There is broad objection to re-opening the original discussion, and the objections to your closing do not overcome the simple addition of WP:NPASR to it. The original nominator has now rejected his original nomination. Given that I had already commented on two related talk pages, the DRV closer had reason to know that I had not commented at the DRV but might do so. P.S. Given that the original nominator has added a new nomination, there is a way forward here that would mostly restore your close...split this AfD into your close with an added WP:NPASR, and a new AfD with the brief new nomination. No one's !vote is taken down. Mine technically is, but the !vote strongly argued against a relist, which this accomplishes. I started reading through the AfDs. Yes, your close was wrong to list that there were ten. You could have fact checked this from where the nomination claimed nine. You might still plan to do this. In AfD 2, the nominator is Sandstein, diff. He even used admin tools in an AfD he started. He nominated AfD 2, used admin tools in AfD 2, and closed the DRV. He is WP:INVOLVED. What say you, Sandstein. Will you agree to split the AfD, and re-word the closing to use more text from the DRV? It is the right thing to do. Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand anything in the above. Nothing needs to be split. Just offer a "delete" or "keep" opinion and get on with writing the encyclopedia.  Sandstein   09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand either. "I expect that SmokeyJoe could provide one, but didn't"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The original nominator has now rejected his original nomination." I've done no such thing. I took onboard the commentary from SmokeyJoe (and others) that my nomination was a tad prolix and added a tongue-in-cheek comment summarizing it. This is one of the strangest things I've ever seen written at an AfD. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Point noted that your comment was "tongue-in-cheek". Unscintillating (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)