Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers,

Thank you for creating 2022 Hoover Dam explosion.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I'm glad someone is on this but a transformer once exploded outside my house in Queens and there's no Wikipedia article about that. This is a thing ONLY because somebody caught the resulting smoke and fire on youtube. No resonance, unlikely to pass NEVENT, IMHO.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BusterD}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BusterD (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: With no injuries and a simple transformer malfunction, It's beginning to look like this may not be notable. I created the article thinking it may have been like an attempted terrorist attack or something. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've already nominated its deletion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the moment, I believe each of your choices was sound and based on policy. Somebody has to take the leap and I appreciate it was someone competent and reasonable. WP:BOLD sort of requires wikipedians to make choices which don't always pan out. We require each others' eyes to catch all the stuff which inevitably happens in a normal day. Thanks for your good work. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Hoover Dam explosion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Hoover Dam explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your closing comment here. You said that because two people objected to PinkNews that it shouldn't be used, but SMH is fine, even though two editors also objected to that? If there is "no consensus" for one, there cannot be consensus for the other with the same relative arguments for and against both. I disagree with your close, and there is no consensus for the change you are suggesting. If the best you can argue is that there is a "rough consensus" then per WP:NACD you should not have closed this discussion. Your closing argument's suggestion on what to do reads like an opinion, not an assessment of the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a liberty and chime in. I beleive the critique by User:Aoidh has foundation. I'll agree especially with their last sentence. When closing such a process, it's wise to avoid making your own opinion part of the closing statement. Less is more in closing statements, generally. We've all seen terrible closes, and this is not that. But User:Aoidh's comments should help you make a better call next time. BusterD (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh, BusterD: PinkNews was ruled to have no consensus because there was legitimate concerns raised about it in discussion by 2 editors even though 3 editors were fine with its use (with one of those not caring if PinkNews or Sydney was used). I saw this split along with the concerns raised and decided that there was no consensus for it; note, this does not mean there is a consensus against it. 3 people also were explicitly in favor/fine with using the Sydney Morning Herald (one of those being the person who didn't care if it was PinkNews or Sydney). Additionally, the one person who only wanted a primary source only did say they believed the Sydney Morning Herald to be "relevant" for establishing weight and "reliable". Only one person in the whole discussion raised concerns of the SMH usability as a citation. With the 4 people speaking highly of the source, and little resistance to it, I decided there was a rough consensus for it. This is much different than the 3 support and 2 grounded opposes with PinkNews. My closing statement is a recommendation I reached based on the consensus. It's what I thought should go forward to make the most heads happy in the discussion. It's not my opinion on the question presented in the RfC; I don't have a formed opinion on that question. Now, that statement is not meant to bar anyone from adding PinkNews because there is certainly not a consensus against using it; I just think adding it could continue to inflame the situation, but I could be wrong. That's why the last paragraph in the close is merely a recommendation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm confused, if as you say 2 editors disfavoring a source and 3 approving of it makes for no consensus for PinkNews, but there were 2 editors who also expressed disapproval and had legitimate concerns about SMH as a source, myself and Musashii1600 here, and 3 editors approving of it (I'm not counting the editor who didn't feel one way or the other about either source). How is one "no consensus" but the other (which has the same number of editors approving/disapproving it) is a "rough consensus" that should therefore replace the "no consensus" source? - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to make clear that this isn't me coming in here in a "how DARE you close in a way I don't like" thing and I'm not accusing you of making a bad faith WP:SUPERVOTE close or anything, I just don't think it was a clear-cut consensus (which you seem to agree with) and therefore per WP:NACD shouldn't have been closed by a non-administrator. I also don't see how a 3:2 view on one source is a "no consensus" but a 3:2 view on a second source is a "rough consensus", and how that suddenly turns into a recommendation that the first source should be replaced with the second. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there are 2 (you and Musahshii) who spoke poorly of the SMH; I originally overlooked Musashii's comment. However, I think you counting the tally wrong. I'm going to remove the person who didn't care from both talliess. PinkNews was favored by Aoidh and Musashii only. Aoih and Musashii were also the only one's to speak negatively about SMH. Now, Unnamed anon, Comatmebro, and Salpynx spoke in approval of SMH. Two of them (Unnamed anon and Comatmebro) expressly disapproved of the use of PinkNews. That makes the approval, disapproval of PinkNews to be 2-2. The approval, disapproval of SMH to be 3-2. That still shows favorability towards the SMH, which I reasonably viewed as rough consensus for it to be used.

When it comes to WP:NACD, it's not uncommon for non-admins to close even the most high profile and contentious of discussions. This discussion was a minor disagreement on what source should be used for a statement of fact on a relatively unknown YouTuber's article. I don't believe that guideline should be interpreted that strictly. I think you should see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which says the outcome of a discussion is rarely changed because the closer was a non-admin.

If you really think PinkNews should be in the article, maybe try to add it in. Again, there's no prejudice against adding it in because there's not a consensus against it's use. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that 2:2 is no consensus but that 3:2 is a consensus, then you need to stop closing discussions until you have more experience with what a consensus is, because that was not a good close, especially if you're not going to view the discussion closely enough that you completely overlook some comments when making the close. There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, but your comment frames it as if there was. Take BusterD's advice and learn from this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenging the NAC at Talk:Technoblade's RfC. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]