Template:Licht ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

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 "[the navbox {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}] contains all of the links in the nominated template"), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, "there is not a single article using {{Licht}} which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}"). 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Closer comment: Discussion on my talk. 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 every 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 addition reference various portions of WP:NAVBOX 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 "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. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. 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. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse 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 introduced since the relist I would not do so. In fact Primefac reverted an attempted relist here the day before the close. -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. 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. Stifle ( talk) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, 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 The template is redundant to a better-designed template, and the !voters disagreed with that, and the !voters didn't misapply policy. SportingFlyer T· C 01:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The deletion nomination wasn’t persuading anyone. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply