In reality, the discussion as to whether or not to ban The Sun as a reliable source on Wikipedia, despite being on the noticeboard longer than the recent reconfirmation of the Mail ban, has simply slid into the archives without being formally closed.
How is that possible, I hear you ask. Well, it is a quirk of the Wikipedia software that it will archive anything you put in an archive box, even if the reason you did that was because......
It wasn't archived until the fifteenth however, so clearly the statement within 48h never arrived.Writing a closure-statement within 48h. Please wait. Thankfully, WBGconverse 05:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be cynical to suggest this has happened on purpose. It suffices to point out, nobody seems all that bothered this debate was not summarised, as promised.
Most people will be able to quickly spot why it wasn't closed. It can't look very good when you manage to get 2/3 support for confirmation of the Mail ban, but for The Sun, it is far closer (29 supporters, 24 opposers).
Tough to explain that disparity, when, if you consulted any actual reliable source, you would realise The Sun is deservedly viewed by academia and the great British public alike, as a worthless rag. It is easy to explain when you realise much of the anti-Mail sentiment on Wikipedia comes from people who are mad as hell that neither the public nor academia views the Mail as unreliable, and are well able to tell the difference between what the Wikipedians clearly don't like about it (their editorial choices and political stances) and what is a mark of unreliability (factual errors made at a rate which would be significant for a paper of their size and reach).
I mean, seriously, who even wastes their time reporting The Sun for a factual error? That would be like reporting Wikipedia for a factual error. Do the Wikipediots not even realise why the 'red tops' are collectively grouped together under that derisory moniker? Their encyclopedia is no help, but they have Google right?
The Sun is the paper that gave us phone hacking and Hillsborough. Scandals of a similar size have been seen at their left wing counter-part, The Mirror. When asked to come up with similar examples of scandals from the Mail, all the Wikipediots can come up with, is that they supported Hitler in the thirties.
The utter ridiculousness of reporting The Daily Star for a factual error, probably explains why, if we used the Wikipedian's only example of non-anecdotal evidence for measuring a paper's unreliability, namely IPSO stats, we would have to assume that paper is more reliable than The Times. Some seriously retarded Wikipedians even suggested The Mail is the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. Ask anyone in Britain, and depending on precisely what unedifying aspect of their content you mean, they will instead finger one of the red tops for that ignomy. Most frequently, The Daily Star.
When it comes to making compelling statistical or factual arguments to prove unreliability as a unique issue, the Mail-hating Wikipedians know nothing about how to compare the reliability of the different titles in the British media. If they did, constructing a case to ban The Sun should be twice as easy as they claimed it was for The Mail, and they claimed that was really easy.
What really gives the game away, is the fact that The Sun is little used as a source on Wikipedia. The Mail is still used by the thousands. Does that sound like they got the outcome of those debates the right way around to you?