Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Community preference (EU)

Slightly-too-speedy close?

@Eggishorn: While you're right that this has technically been open for over a month, it's only been active since 5 October, since the nomination was malformed (Finngall fixed it after it was lying dormant for a while.) I think it's plausible that WP:CSK #1 applies in any event, but I wanted to let you know that this has only been a visible discussion for a few days without any speedy keep votes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings:, I did see that but I felt that, since three established editors had found and commented on it, there had been enough visibility. Combined with a nearly impenetrable nomination statement that seemed to disavow itself from deleting the article, I felt that CSK #1 was met closely-enough to close it. If you have an objection to that, I will revert my close but I think this is a valid WP:IAR application; it would really serve no useful purpose to revert and just close it again in another month. I hope that helps explain my reasoning. If you disagree with it, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, Thanks for your detailed and persuasive explanation. I agree, particularly given that, as you note, there is really no practical reason to reopen. Just wanted to flag the above in case you hadn't noticed. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, AleatoryPonderings: Yeah, no objection here to the early close. When I rescued it from purgatory (I scan User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD‎ occasionally to try and find old untemplated discussion pages like this one), I pondered whether it should have been speedy-kept straightaway, but my usual default in all but the most egregious cases is to let the discussion run and let the community have their say. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]