This was an inappropriate closure because it was closed as keep by an editor who had advocated keep in the discussion. They claimed that opposers were wrong because the template now met WP:NAVBOX but it still only contains two links and the topic link, so I would have argued it fails the "rule of five" suggested at WP:NENAN. This supervote needs to be reverted.
BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS I contacted the closer, Arbor to SJ, two days ago. They have edited since but not replied. BethNaught (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While WP:NAVBOX No. 4 in the nomination was refuted and not contested, WP:EXISTING and having "nothing to navigate" seem to have some weight. The last comment about another article having been created was made by the eventual closer, which does not explicitly address the EXISTING concern. The "part of a series" support !vote is not based on a guideline, so I give it less weight. The TfD, though never relisted, was open for a sufficient time at 20+ days. I would have endorsed a "no consensus" close, which would have effectively kept the template anyways. However, we are here at DRV, it doesnt make sense (and it might not be allowed?) to overturn to "no consensus" just to have to renominate it, so it makes sense to relist and leverage the existing !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I essentially concur with the opinion above; and the discussion being closed by a participant is a serious enough error to warrant overturning and relisting regardless of the content of the discussion itself, in my opinion. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Get an admin to signoff or reclose. Not an egregious abuse of process, it looking like an obvious close, with User:Arbor to SJ doing most of the work associated with the template, and with TfD suffering from a lack of hands. Advise User:Arbor to SJ to not close discussions in which he has a stake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there was intent for abuse. I remember seeing somewhere about a change in TfD close process to decrease the blacklog, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know the link?—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BADNAC there is no way as seeing this as anything but a bad closure. Editors who have taken part in a discussion aren't allowed to do a NAC except in just one instance- If they are 'closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep'. If not for their agreeing to a relist, Arbor to SJ at the very least earned a trout slap....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: I was getting impatient with the hold-up, since the discussion hadn't been formally closed once 7 days had passed. I admit making a mistake and do not wish to repeat such ever again. As such, I welcome a second discussion, given the current situation surrounding this template. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist since the closer supports a relist. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist per Cunard....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
