List of postal codes in Canada – Vacate WP:NAC and relist. I'm not a big fan of overriding NAC's just because they are NACs, but in this case, I think it's clear that WP:BADNAC #2 (The outcome is a close call) applies. Opinion in the AfD was pretty much split down the middle, and so far this DRV also looks 50/50. I suspect if I was closing this AfD, I would have not closed it, and just relisted it for another week to see if a more clear consensus would emerge. So, that's what I'm going to do. @HindWIKI:, I don't mean to step on your toes; your efforts are appreciated, but I think this one is a little too complicated to fit WP:NAC. – -- RoySmith(talk)21:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just discovered that there was a second AfD on this topic, which I didn't know about when I closed the DRV. I've ranted a bit about this on ToThAc's talk page. Mentioning it here so everybody knows the full history. As I mentioned there, at this point, the best way forward seems to be to just let the original (and re-opened) AfD continue to it's conclusion. Please folks, let's try and keep things as simple and straight-forward as possible. -- RoySmith(talk)15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
reopen the current discussion, but if we have to do the discussion here, then delete The first discussion was grossly inadequate; when real issues with the article were brought up in the second discussion, the response was bureaucracy in the face of a discussion that was headed towards either deletion or redirection. That direction should either be honored now, or the discussion let run its course. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this is basically a subjective editorial judgement: do we have this information as part of a larger article, as a standalone page, or some combination of the two? As that is just a judgement call I think the closer was right to go with the majority opinion. You don't need an AfD to redirect something, you can do it through the normal editorial process, and I don't think anyone's likely to dispute that this is a reasonable search term. Hut 8.519:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse basically, because the difference in doing it in a separate page isn't worth othering about. Considering the amount of junk we need to remove, and --equally important -- the amount of time we need to spend encouraging promising new editors, dealing receptively in detail with things like this is counterproductive DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.