The current policy is the following -

Any product that has "Revenue Distributions" applied with the receiver of such revenue still logging in should be a form of condition to keep the product from being unlisted.

Any store that has a manager that still logs in should also be a form of condition to keep a product from being unlisted, especially since it would waste the manager time in having to relist it when it shouldn't have been unlisted in the first place since they're helping to manage the store.

There are also stores that have an alt account as the store account with their main account as the store manager. While said person might log in often through their store manager account to see how sales are doing and so on while rarely logging into the store owner account unless they need to do fundamental updates to the products or other various critical reasons. Beyond that they might let that store account sit there while maybe the customer questions are being directed to the manager account.

Then there is the fact that some store owners might have 2 or 3 stores in total but has one account that is a manager to all of their stores to keep an eye on sales or customer reviews. Since it takes time to log in and out of each account if you have more than 1 store. In fact there were times I didn't log into a particular account for a long swath of time unless I saw a product review or a message from a customer that was sent to my email through the system that SL provides.

Point is, a manager or someone who receives Revenue Distributions should have some weight on whether certain conditions are met for the Product Unlisting Policy. Otherwise without the proper counters then the current policy as it stands can cause undo hassle for everyone involved in the scenarios I laid out or various other examples that people might provide.

At the same time, I sort of get that this is needed for actual dead stores, but it shouldn't penalize stores with active managers and active Revenue Distribution receivers.

Fact of the matter with that said, why is this "Product Unlisting Policy" there in the first place since "Store Disabling Policy" should fully cover a dead store. Especially since some customers might view a product and not buy it but bought something else from the store (like that products other color). Simply because if it wasn't for that first product they might not have bought anything from that specific store in the first place, which does happen often enough.

As an example about the color part I mentioned earlier, a lot of people might prefer a certain color of a product but some other colors or fatpacks might not sell as often or as often as the past. I've seen some customers buy one color one year and another color a year or two later.

Thing is, either this policy should be changed to reflect current reality or at most just get rid of the "Product Unlisting Policy" since it's more of a major issue for not just the people that handle the store but for customers too.