I'd like to revisit this recent TC. Now, the matter of whether or not we should be creating redirects from plausible search terms is an entire separate discussion that I'd rather not go into here. Instead, what concerns me is that, due to the way our current TC procedure is set up, this particular vote might have ended with a result where the article was kept (due to reverting to the status quo state in case of no consensus) despite literally no user having voted to keep it.
I believe this is a potential situation that we should really take steps toward preventing in the future. Codifying something like "if a TC's result is no-consensus with no votes in support of keeping the article, the closing administrator must implement the voting option that calls for the article to be redirected, if present" or some such, perhaps? The most recent initiative at modifying the TC procedure has demonstrated that there are a lot of considerations to be done, so, any suggestions are welcome. Imperators II(Talk) 08:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Discuss
- Agreed that we should be avoiding the outcome that nobody voted for. The ways to resolve it would either be to have a secondary count in instances of no-consensus that combines all delete and merge options and if that reaches consensus then default to redirect, as you suggested, or having all redirect votes be a sub-vote of the delete vote, which would similarly ensure all votes to not keep are group but favor deleting instead. I'd prefer the first option, but either is better then the current situation. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- This would be a potentially nice compromise, but it should have some stopgap because no consensus won't always be shifted the way it almost was in the Luminara's droid TC. We should only be doing this if the combined votes for delete/redirect are altogether enough to out-consensus the keep vote per consensus policy; if the keep votes are themselves contributing to the no consensus significantly enough then the page should return to the status quo as is current policy. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd agree, sorry if that wasn't clear. The combine "don't keep" options would need to be enough to reach consensus taking the keep votes into account as the oppose option. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Er, Thannus, note the "with no votes in support of keeping the article" bit in my proposed possible wording... Imperators II(Talk) 07:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- The point is that "no votes" shouldn't be a criterion. If there is 1 vote to keep, 20 to redirect, and 20 to delete, there's technically no consensus even though people who think the subject shouldn't have an article outnumber those who think it should by 40 to 1. Asithol (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Yeah, that makes sense. Imperators II(Talk) 11:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- The point is that "no votes" shouldn't be a criterion. If there is 1 vote to keep, 20 to redirect, and 20 to delete, there's technically no consensus even though people who think the subject shouldn't have an article outnumber those who think it should by 40 to 1. Asithol (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Er, Thannus, note the "with no votes in support of keeping the article" bit in my proposed possible wording... Imperators II(Talk) 07:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd agree, sorry if that wasn't clear. The combine "don't keep" options would need to be enough to reach consensus taking the keep votes into account as the oppose option. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- An outcome that was not voted on is not the outcome we want, so agreed with above Lewisr (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)