The result was procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. What I see in this discussion was a 3-0 count in favor of "delete", followed by a pile-on of "keep" voters who were canvassed to this discussion by the first keep voter. From what I can see, only "keep" voters were notified. This project is governed by consensus, and WP:CANVASS is a serious aspect of this as it prohibits users from artificially fabricating consensus via biased notification. It appears very obvious to me that that is what happened here, and there is no way I can interpret this as a genuinely-formed consensus. In other words, even if the community would have reached the same consensus without the canvassing, there is no way to judge that, given how severely the participation was apparently skewed by canvassing. There is no assumption of bad faith on the part of any notified participants, and their arguments, as well as past discussions, should be genuinely considered when considering whether to renominate. However, this discussion should not preclude such a renomination, as there is no way for the community to judge whether the apparent overwhelming "keep" consensus would have been reached if the discussion had taken place normally. Swarm ♠ 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search