Category:Rankoshi, Hokkaido ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hello, this category (listed on 2 July) has been deleted with the erroneous comment "per discussion" or some such (mobile edit, hard to check, sorry). Three points were made, citing WP:SMALLCAT as if it mentioned not potential: (1) the category only has 2 pages, while at time of deletion there were 5; (2) the nominator couldn't find other relevant pages, when they are now in receipt of an explanation as to how to perform a Wikipedia search; (3) recreation were there ever five pages (which, as above, I believe there were when the category was deleted). Please reinstate (and also perhaps hold back from the trigger or provide better reasoning for why it might (have) be(en) squozen), thanks Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 00:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Category contents at deletion. — Cryptic 01:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Too soon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis has not bothered to contact the closer of the discussion directly before listing a DRV request. And by the way, they also have not notified the closer about this DRV request. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • They don't have to. There are two relevant discussion threads on WT:DRV, if you have a mind to read them?— S Marshall  T/ C 09:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Ok, admittedly I was not aware of the two threads. Nevertheless this is typically a situation in which a direct contact with the closer (about the fact that circumstances have changed since the last contribution to the discussion) would probably have made a formal DRV request unnecessary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore category. I endorse the close, as it was in accordance with the unanimous consensus, but the pretext for deletion has been overcome as WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Restore Category. The only comment in the XfD was, "no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 articles.". Unless I'm misinterpreting Cryptic's link, there were 5 articles in the cat at the time it was deleted. So why was this deleted in the first place? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Well, surely, because that was the consensus? I mean, when a discussion's unanimous, it seems harsh to give the closer a hard time for implementing it.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Fair point. Clearly the wrong result, but I guess I can't lay that on the closer. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply