Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard (section)

===Discussion===
*@[[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]], a few questions about your close:
:1. Was my detailed [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] analysis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jim%C3%A9nez#c-Shiningr3ds-20260113135800-Rosbif73-20260113125300 four specific points, 13 January]) accurate?
:2. Was it mentioned anywhere in your closing statement? If not, why was it ignored?
:3. Did merge supporters ever engage with the sources I provided (El Tiempo, Portafolio) — or did they just keep repeating "coverage is about Jiménez"?
:4. If a topic meets [[WP:GNG]], demonstrates [[WP:LASTING]] effects, has [[WP:SIGCOV]] from multiple independent sources, and a standalone article is supported by [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] — does it deserve its own article, or can it still be merged simply because some editors prefer it? [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 04:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*@[[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]], I'd encourage you to read [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. The closing statement says merge supporters "argued convincingly" — but looking at the actual discussion, what do we see? I addressed every single argument from the merge side. Policy points, sources, lasting effects — all responded to. Multiple other participants even noted that consensus was unclear. That alone should have been enough for a different outcome.
I'll be honest — I came here hoping for a genuine review of my arguments. Instead, I'm seeing "endorse, I don't see any problems" without anyone actually addressing the problems I've pointed out. Ignoring sources — is that not a problem? Dismissing coverage of the crash itself as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jiménez#c-11WB-20260211180600-Shiningr3ds-20260211180400 all about Jiménez]" when the sources clearly aren't — is that not a problem? Being outvoted by "per nom" comments and having that called "convincing argumentation" — is that not a problem? Having my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE|PAGEDECIDE]] analysis completely ignored, then seeing the same rule cited to justify the merge — is that not a problem?
If none of this matters, then I genuinely don't know what the point of arguments is anymore. 
I write long posts because short ones don't work. If you want shorter replies, engage with what I'm actually saying instead of brushing it aside. 
[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 11:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:I am breaking COAL to reply to this. @[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], I am only going to say this once. [[WP:MERGEREVIEW]]: '{{tq|Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.}}' By sending that message, you are actually doing the very thing that @Blue Sonnet warned about. Please let other editors come to their own conclusions now. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  11:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::You're quoting [[WP:MERGEREVIEW]] back at me, so let's use it: a review is for problems with the close itself. I've pointed out four. Those aren't a rehash; they're the reasons this review exists. If you think the close was fine, address them. Otherwise, telling me to stop while refusing to engage is the actual bludgeoning. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::[[User_talk:Blue-Sonnet#c-11WB-20260317120500-AN|I've advised]] @Blue Sonnet to strike out or remove the mention of bludgeoning. That doesn't mean there should be a repeat of what took place over in the original merge proposal or the discussion that took place yesterday. Everybody can read and understand your points, you don't need to keep repeating them over and over. ''That'' is bludgeoning by definition. You obviously believe you are right, if that is the case, you would follow COAL and stop repeating the same points. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  12:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I just want a substantive discussion about the specific problems I've pointed out — not more "looks fine" without explanation. I'll stop repeating when someone actually addresses what I wrote. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Review is not the place for substantive discussion of the underlying dispute (that took place during the merge discussion itself). Review is solely about confirming that normal wiki process has been followed and that the close was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. Two uninvolved editors have already endorsed the close; I suggest simply waiting for the review to conclude. Sometimes you just have to accept that your point of view has not prevailed and move on to other things. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 12:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::We're in the "Discussion" section for a reason. If this isn't a review, what is it? And this isn't just my personal opinion — it's based on policy and sources. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:11WB|11WB]] Done. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 12:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you can't dictate what other editors should or shouldn't say. It is down to the individual editor to summarise their position. They are obviously going to read your extensive statement, but if they don't feel it is necessary to go over each point, they won't and aren't obligated to. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  12:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::That is going to be my final reply, as I am digging a hole myself by replying to you now. Please consider letting this play out, instead of feeling like you have to respond to every individual message. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  12:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm not dictating anything — just following [[WP:READFIRST]]. If they'd read what I wrote, they'd see the problems I pointed out. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|AGF]] and don't make presumptions about what I have and haven't done. I've read through the arguments on the Talk page and the close itself before reaching my decision, as per the page you quoted.
:::::::I struck my earlier comments as requested in good faith and kindly ask that you extend that same good faith to those who don't hold the same viewpoint as yourself. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 15:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:I broadly agree with the sentiment above that this is relitigating the RM rather than the close, but since Shiningr3ds is implying that their points were not considered by the closer and should have overridden the !votes saying the pages should be merged, I will attempt to reply to that point here.
:*On your first point, "Standalone page best serves reader understanding" you provide a quote from [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] stating that {{xt|"Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page"}}, but you then don't mention the end of that sentence, which goes on to say {{xt|"but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic"}}. This is the entire point of [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] - some topics which otherwise appear to meet [[WP:GNG]] do not actually warrant having their own page, hence it's up to us to "decide" whether there should be one or not. You then went on to say {{xt|"This is exactly such a case"}}, giving your views as to why a separate page was warranted. But that's your view and there were a majority of editors at the discussion who did not believe a separate page was warranted. The PAGEDECIDE guideline does not in itself favour one or other of these viewpoints. 
:*The second part of your 13 Jan comment states that we shouldn't merge just because of "space availability", but I'm not aware of any contributor in the discussion having made such an argument so it doesn't seem particularly relevant here. 
:*On your third point, "needed context", you state that readers need {{xt|"The context for the crash is the history of the aircraft, weather and investigation procedures"}}. But those arguing for a merge felt the exact opposite. It was argued by multiple editors that the plane and the crash itself would not have been notable but for the death of a famous person on board; and as such, detailed descriptions of weather and aircraft history that one would typically find in an article on an aircraft disaster aren't required to understand the overall picture and numerous similar accidents that occur go without any such article. If weather or the state of the aircraft are found to have played a specific part in the death of Jimenez then we can mention those in a couple of sentences in the section on his page detailing his death; a full separate article is not required for that, or so the majority of respondents felt. 
:*And finally, on "What sourcing is available now?" - you suggest there is a lot of sourcing about the crash specifically, but that doesn't seem to be evidenced. The sources you did provide, such as [https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/las-imagenes-ineditas-del-accidente-de-avioneta-de-yeison-jimenez-que-revelo-nuevo-informe-preliminar-de-la-aerocivil-danos-sustanciales-3528034], are clearly about the accident in the context of Jimenez's death itself, the articles aren't focusing on the crash just because it was a crash. The headline makes that clear. Thus that source supports addition of content in [[Yeison Jiménez]], it doesn't provide evidence that a page on the plane crash is warranted.
:Anyway, the main point is that all of this was raised and considered during the RM itself; Rosbif73 specifically responded to your 13 January post, and no other participant thought that invoking PAGEDECIDE as you did was in any way a slam dunk argument. Judging by their detailed closing comment, I believe the closer also read the full discussion and also did not see it as an open-and-shut policy point that overrode the comments in favour of merging. You're welcome to respond to my points here if you like, but like 11WB I don't intend to get into a lengthy back-and-forth here. I will be endorsing the close as an involved participant who also supported the merge in the original discussion. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]], you're missing the point. [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] doesn't just say "merging is sometimes allowed". It says decisions must be based on specific considerations about reader understanding — exactly the ones I provided. You haven't addressed why those considerations are wrong, only that others disagreed. That's not a policy argument, that's just headcount. Regarding the sources, you're judging the source by its headline without reading it. El Tiempo is not "about Jiménez's death" — it's a detailed analysis of the preliminary report, with crash investigation data, photos. The headline mentions Jiménez because that's what made it newsworthy, but the content is about the crash itself. That's exactly what [[WP:SIGCOV]] requires. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 13:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm not missing any points. I have explained to you why your reading of PAGEDECIDE does not automatically mean there's no merge of the articles, and that's it. The majority of participants did not agree with and rebutted your reading of PAGEDECIDE, you did not convince them, and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] was against you. That's how Wikipedia decision-making works, and repeatedly making the same point over and over isn't going to change the outcome. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]] [[WP:NOTAVOTE|isn't a vote count]]. It's based on the strength of arguments. You say my reading was "rebutted" — but where? Rosbif73 repeated that the crash is "run-of-the-mill". That's not a rebuttal — it's an opinion. No one engaged with my sources or my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] breakdown. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 13:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I have a genuine question @Shiningr3ds. If this review closes as an endorse of the original close, what do you plan to do? Not trying to make assumptions here, but this does come across as a complete refusal to accept that your view may differ from the general consensus. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  14:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Honestly, I might take a break from Wikipedia — these discussions are exhausting. Or maybe I'll just focus on preparing articles for "Did you know" on Russian Wikipedia (where I'm also active). Either way, the way my arguments have been treated — first denying [[WP:SIGCOV]] entirely (which was your main complaint), then admitting one source actually qualifies, yet still pushing for the merge without addressing the rest — is seriously demotivating. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 15:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::We all understand what you are putting forward, and have engaged with it. Unfortunately, the mindset with which you have approached this review has made the discussion quite contentious. It's either everyone else is wrong and you are right, with no alternative being possible (which is the reality). A break may be a good idea. I agree that these discussions have been exhausting, but they didn't need to be, had the original closure simply been accepted for what it was. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  15:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*@[[User:Aviationwikiflight|Aviationwikiflight]], you admit there "wasn't much discussion on the sources". That's the entire point — they were ignored. If sources aren't discussed, how can a close be based on a fair reading of the discussion?

You call the sources "regurgitations of the preliminary report". That's a convenient label, but let's test it. El Tiempo, Infobae include expert commentary, analysis of the investigation, and details about the crash itself. That's not regurgitation — that's secondary coverage. You've used the same dismissal in other discussions ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bimini Piper Pa-32 crash|2010 Bimini Piper Pa-32 crash]], for example), where multiple editors had to explain why a year‑later article with expert interviews was clearly secondary. This is a pattern: when sources contradict your view, you call them "routine" or "regurgitation" without engaging.

[[WP:LASTING]] doesn't require a change in international law. Riots, police intervention at a tribute, and 14,000 attendees are documented social effects. If that's not "lasting", what is? The bar you're setting is impossibly high.

The Kennedy crash comparison isn't [[WP:OSE]] as a "keep because they have one" argument. It's to show inconsistency: if a crash involving a famous person with significant coverage gets a standalone article, why not this one? That's not policy, but it highlights that the merge wasn't based on consistent application of the guidelines.

You say "consensus doesn't require unanimity" — true. But it does require that arguments are weighed, not just counted. The closer ignored my detailed [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] breakdown and the sources. That's not consensus — that's a headcount.

I'm not re-litigating. I'm pointing out that the close didn't reflect what was actually in the discussion. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 14:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:Please stop bludgeoning. You are repeating the same points you have already made. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]])  15:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

<small>[Moved from Closer section above]</small> @[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you don't seem to have understood the essential point that several people have made to you, namely that review is solely about determining whether there are any valid procedural reasons to overturn the close, but does NOT involve re-litigating the discussion{{snd}}which is precisely what your questions are doing. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}