Dan Grey writes:
"Erm, as you can plainly see it was me who did the deed on that one! It
must've been only the third or fourth AfD I've ever closed. So if you
think I've got it wrong, you know where the undelete link is :-)"
Dan, let me first assure you that, had I also closed that debate, I would
also have felt that I had no choice but to delete, and I would have done
so without hesitation despite my personal feelings. An administrator who
ignores consensus on such a scale needs a *very* good reason, lest his
actions bring the AfD process into disrepute.
But necessarily I had to choose an article that I think most people could
be persuaded to agree probably could have benefited from, at most, some
aggressive editing. I've gone in and shaken up articles myself, it's not
so hard (see for instance the article on Biff Rose, which was an almighty
mess when I found it). If someone went down that list article and
referenced every power ballad with a source for the designation, this
would at least permit readers to make their own mind up on how valid the
designation was. That's all it would require. Four or five hundred
songs, I reckon an enthusiastic editor with a tabbing browser could get
through about 100 in an hour, if not more. I have no doubt that if I'd
done that on day one of the nomination the outcome would have been at
worst a no-consensus keep, and if I'd kept it up for the whole five days
(and I can) there would have been an overwhelming keep vote.