The discussion was closed prematurely (before the full 7 days) and there were only two participants in the discussion. I requested that the discussion be relisted, but my request was denied. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer--The policy states:--The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution and has no likelihood of being used.Coming to this case, at least, a TFD participant, (who isn't the original creator) has displayed potential interest in the template and may choose to work on it.Amos has once displayed a potential interest.Even I or damn anybody else may choose to have a go at it.
About why I avoided relisting, TFD has a reputation of a venue that hardly recieves any meaningful discussion/participation in a huge majority of the template-discussions(which leads to most of the templates being subject to deletion after a treatment equivalent to that of PROD).In these seven days, the sole argument advanced by the nom which has an automatic corollary of no potential usefulness has been quite well-voided.Also, I fail to see any other benefits of the deletion.So, I stand by my closure.Winged BladesGodric 14:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looks like a solid Keep decision, no idea where the issue lies.Schracq (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is that the discussion was closed early, and there was only one additional participant in the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at User:Schracq's edit history? I'd believe the editor when he says he has no idea where the issue lies. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist No need for an early close, especially by a non-admin. The fact that the closer now says he/she might use the template, is a statement that the closer should have posted as a !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFDs don't distinguish between NACs and admin-closes, even minimally, in case of non-contentious case(s).And IMO, you have taken the statement he/she might use the template out of context; it just describes the potential usability of the template.Winged BladesGodric 08:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This appears to have been closed 3 hours early when there seems a clear reason to keep the template. TFD has been utterly broken for years due to low participation and relisting this serves no value as the outcome should be keep. SpartazHumbug! 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that outcome is so uncertain that it must be propped up with rumors that the closer might use it, that outcome becomes less certain. If there were no value to being here, the OPs petition should have been speedy closed as lacking in DRVPURPOSE. As for opinions that the outcome should be this or that, this is not TFD#2. Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I see no benefit from closing a discussion early with so few participants. I have closed discussions a few hours early myself, but I am always willing to relist them if asked. The "low participation" in discussions is not fixed by closing discussions early, since relisting discussions only increases the chances of more participation. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "The discussion was closed early" might sound alarming—but if I am reading the timestamps correctly, it was closed just two hours short of the full seven days, which is de minimis. A relisting might have been appropriate but is not mandatory. Since the real question raised in the TfD is whether the template is going to be used in any articles anytime soon, and since the template isn't causing any harm by existing, the easiest solution is to wait for a couple of months and see what happens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the template isn't causing any harm by existing--Precisely.Winged BladesGodric 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a mobile and failed to parse your comment.If you mean that it's a hoax, CSD is always available and that will obviously overrule the TFD.Winged BladesGodric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the two (it's three not two) hours de minimis is only looking at one aspect of the issue, and ignoring among other issues the judgment that went into closing early and refusing to relist. The community had a discussion in January 2016, and confirmed that 7 days mean 168 hours. One user there posted:
168 hours. As a side note, I take a very dim view of controversial non-administrative closures. If an editor wants to engage in controversial closes, they ought to go through an RfA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The 2009 decision to change AfDs/deletion discussion to 7 days closed with:
All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion
If you think that was a controversial close which shall be evaluated as to the span of the arguments in the TFD, it was not.And if you are fond of quoting established editors you may wish to pay a visit to this and this.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Not all procedural variations are significant, but the 7 day minimum is. Experience in the past was that it inevitably led to creep downwards, and even people trying to get there first to do the closet heyclose they favored. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [typo corrected Unscintillating (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Three hours taken out of the mandated 168 would not have made an iota of difference.Not bureaucracy and all that.Failed to get your 2nd line.Winged BladesGodric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The whole matter seems vexatious and no further time should be wasted on it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:40, 30 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.
