Wikipedia:Bartender's closing

There is an old line often attributed to bartenders, telling bar patrons at closing time:

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcut WP:BARTENDERWP:BARTENDER

This page in a nutshell: In situations where the status quo does not have consensus but it is unclear which of multiple alternatives has the most support, the closer may have to choose between them at their discretion.

A bartender's close in a discussion occurs where there is an initial proposal to take some action, and a discussion in which there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo, but not to make the specific change originally proposed.

An example would be a proposal to delete an article on a hypothetical Bob Smith, where the participants in the discussion are divided with three (plus the nominator) supporting deletion, three opposing deletion, and three agreeing that the article should not exist, but proposing to merge it into another article. In that case, there is clearly a majority view that this Bob Smith should not have an article, but an absence of consensus as to what should be done next. The most reasonable outcome is to close the discussion as merge and redirect, given the equally clear absence of consensus for outright deletion, and WP:PRESERVE.

A similar circumstance often arises in move requests, where there is substantial support for moving the hypothetical "Bob Smith" away from its current title, but disagreement as to whether the best target to which it could be moved is "Bob Thomas Smith" or "Bob Smith (podiatrist)" or "Bob Smith (born 1962)". In such a case, the page should be moved, and the closing administrator will just have to use their best judgement as to which possible target title best meets the policies and goals of the encyclopedia, and the needs of readers.

In short, the closing administrator, like the closing bartender, must make the call that the article doesn't have to go where the proposal intended, but can't stay where it is.

On the other hand, if all options including the status quo are equal, a bartender's closing may not be appropriate. If there's no compelling reason requiring a change, forcing the status quo voters to get an absolute majority while any other group only needs a plurality may be unfair. Taking the above page-move example, the implication is that "Bob Smith" is inappropriate, perhaps because this Bob is not the primary topic for "Bob Smith", and so a disambiguation must be made. If instead the article is already at "Bob Thomas Smith" and there's no reason to change other than editors' preferences as to whether full name, occupation, or birth date is the more appropriate method of disambiguation, there's likely no compelling reason to say "you can't stay here".