If the nom has policy/guideline-based arguments for keeping this, I'd be okay with a relist to give them a chance to make those arguments. But procedurally I see no problem here. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse at this time, in the absence of a more specific argument from Orangemike as to what the error was. The CFD was open for the usual seven days, and it appears that other CFDs are also often closed as NACs after one listing for seven days rather than waiting for an admin closer or relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct interpretation of unanimous consensus to delete. A relist would have also been a reasonable choice due to limited participation, but delete was the better choice as nobody supported “keep” in the CFD. FrankAnchor02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I don't think the close was "bad", per se, but I think this could have benefited from a relist. The current name was clearly a problem (as could also be seen in the category's description), but I think that a rename with pruning might have been possible through further discussion. I think User:Marcocapelle had some interesting ideas in the discussion for subcats for a better named parent cat. So maybe something like Category:Science-fiction fandom people, might be a decent discussion starter. - jc3703:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not being clearer. I was saying that they could be. The point being that further discussion could bring about further options/ideas/information/etc. Of which you just listed another : ) - jc3708:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unanimous consensus to delete after 7 days, and even though I don't see anything exempting CFD from WP:BADNAC #4 (perhaps we should do an RfC on this), they seem to accept delete NACs. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse was listed for 7 days with unanimous support for deletion. Reopening it would be reasonable if there was a substantial argument against deletion, or if the conclusion was somehow suspect, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hut 8.510:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Why on earth would anyone think the closure was "indecently hasty"? The discussion was allowed to run for more than 7 days, three editors commented, which is a reasonable number by CfD standards, and every one of those supported deletion. It is difficult to imagine a more unambiguously correct closure.JBW (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: The "unanimous consensus" being spoken of here was among two voters, one of whom wrote nothing but their signature. The nomination just pointed at WP:DEFININGwithout explaining why, while the other just said WP:PERNOM and then offered alternatives, still without explaining how WP:DEFINING applied in this case. Agreeing that the discussion should stay closed because it was open for a day longer than the minimum requirement glosses over a lack of actual reasons given for its deletion and closure per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and an examination of the quality of arguments required by WP:CON to decide that there was consensus. benǝʇᴉɯ13:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those "voters" often comment at CfD and other experienced editors (should) know that their "votes" are !votes. William Allen Simpson agreed with the nominator that the category is based on a non-defining characteristic, which is the most classic reason to delete a category, and didn't have anything to add. It's unnecessary to explain how being a science fiction fan is not a defining characteristic, because it's so obvious. Three editors agreed and no one disagreed during the full discussion period, because there was really nothing else to say. —Alalch E.15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - in the absence of any rationale whatsoever to keep, it's difficult to see how else this could have been closed. Oculi (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
