313:, but I don't think the chiding of the nom above is appropriate - this was a non-admin close (though those are common at TfD) with minimal participation (also common at TfD) so if the nom thinks the closer didn't weigh the !keep arguments properly we can have a look. I don't think this is the case, though: the general rule is
254:. A navbox listing 11 articles serves a very different purpose from a broader one listing more than 200 articles, so the rationale for deletion is unpersuasive, and the "Keep" closure was correct given that no one other than the nominator voted for deletion. I don't understand why this was brought to DRV.
231:
close I make, although I do it often enough (probably more than the average closer, tbh), especially in cases where I think it would increase confidence in the close, provide helpful advice to editors, or for less clear outcomes. So really I can only refer back to the answer I gave at my talk, and in
271:
I regularly close TfDs and would have made the same call if I were to close this. The only somewhat reasonable alternative here would be to relist it, but given that there already was a relist, noone has supported the proposal except for the nominator and no new arguments for deletion have been
236:
for the PAG-based support of the keep arguments (which asserted that the template provides good navigational value), whilst the deletion argument is not supported by the same guideline. Hence I see no reason to wholly discredit the keep arguments, which is what would be required to achieve the
227:. My view is as I say there. I've closed a good number of TfD discussions at this point, and none without evaluating the arguments, regardless of the vote tally. Course, like all other closers at TfD, I don't see the need to write paragraphs for
237:"delete" result requested here. I will also note that I did relist it for further comments initially, so this discussion was already open for two weeks. Further, the achieved quorum is not atypical in the context of navbox TfDs.
197:). TfD is not a vote, and the two (only) keep comments amount to no more than "I like it" (expressed as "I don't like the alternative"). The closer has declined my request to reconsider.
160:
296:. The nominator here will be well aware that deletion review is used to address issues of failure to follow deletion process, not merely because they disagree with the outcome.
48:
34:
43:
177:
I'm asking that this close be overturned, or at least reopened and relisted, as the close does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes
148:
39:
331:
213:
21:
242:
224:
169:
364:
98:
17:
238:
323:
209:
353:
336:
305:
288:
263:
246:
217:
87:
259:
284:
349:
118:
233:
318:
200:
83:
301:
255:
280:
345:
114:
70:
273:
79:
297:
317:, and the !voters disagreed with that, and the !voters didn't misapply policy.
315:
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
276:
272:
introduced since the relist I would not do so. In fact
155:
141:
133:
125:
344:. The deletion nomination wasn’t persuading anyone. —
179:" contains all of the links in the nominated template"
279:
an attempted relist here the day before the close. --
181:), nor points raised in discussion (in particular,
8:
97:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
232:addition reference various portions of
314:
182:
178:
183:"there is not a single article using
7:
367:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
363:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
354:23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
337:01:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
306:16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
289:22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
264:19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
247:18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
218:17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
88:10:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
390:
192:{{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}
370:Please do not modify it.
189:which is not also using
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
239:ProcrastinatingReader
225:Discussion on my talk
101:of the page above.
377:
376:
381:
372:
334:
326:
223:Closer comment:
216:
207:
203:
194:
193:
188:
187:
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
53:
33:
389:
388:
384:
383:
382:
380:
379:
378:
368:
365:deletion review
330:
322:
205:
199:
198:
191:
190:
185:
184:
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
59:1 November 2020
55:
54:
51:
49:2020 November 2
46:
37:
35:2020 October 31
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
387:
385:
375:
374:
359:
358:
357:
356:
339:
308:
291:
266:
249:
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
115:Template:Licht
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
76:close endorsed
71:Template:Licht
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
386:
373:
371:
366:
361:
360:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
327:
325:
320:
319:SportingFlyer
316:
312:
309:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
248:
244:
240:
235:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
206:Pigsonthewing
202:
196:
180:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2020 November
41:
36:
23:
19:
369:
362:
341:
329:
321:
310:
293:
268:
251:
228:
214:Andy's edits
210:Talk to Andy
201:Andy Mabbett
176:
103:
96:
75:
69:
58:
256:Newyorkbrad
281:Trialpears
346:SmokeyJoe
234:WP:NAVBOX
186:{{Licht}}
277:reverted
274:Primefac
80:Primefac
20: |
342:Endorse
311:Endorse
294:Endorse
269:Endorse
252:Endorse
170:restore
134:history
298:Stifle
229:every
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
350:talk
302:talk
285:talk
260:talk
243:talk
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
84:talk
32:<
208:);
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
352:)
304:)
287:)
262:)
245:)
212:;
86:)
78:.
74:–
42::
348:(
332:C
328:·
324:T
300:(
283:(
258:(
241:(
204:(
195:"
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.