User talk:Doczilla
User talk:Doczilla
|
Doczilla stays busy meeting real life deadlines and may not see inquiries soon.
The big lizard therefore will not always respond swiftly even though messages are appreciated. |
on the Allentown
Hello, I believe that the 1977 Allentown mayoral election should not be closed as "no consensus", and should either be relisted or closed as delete. No policy-based arguments were used against the deletion, and consensus is formed on strength of arguments as much as voting. No final relist was ever given for this article. I will open a deletion review if I do not hear back from you. Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @1ctinus - I'd agree with the closer here, purely on numbers there's only a nomination and a single weak (analytically) support. It was relisted twice. There was a fairly engaged discussion between yourself and a keep supporter. WP:POLOUTCOMES on mayorality is not unambiguous, there are multiple factors which influence determining notability. To my knowledge, there's never been a community consensus around the size of a municipal area which provides some kind of presumed notability, although roughly speaking to my reading of the discussions, anything greater than 100,000 people is more often than not persuasive. A third relisting was unlikely to have brought any further insight to the discussion, no consensus seems fairly reasonable to me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will not normally delete it." "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete." Clearer consensus was needed to destroy an article.
- From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Determining consensus: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented..." It is not a vote, but multiple perspectives are required.
- From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions: For several reasons, "repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." (Italics and boldface appear there, not added here for emphasis.) The word final does not appear anywhere on the deletion process page. Announcing "final relist" is not necessary. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for claifying. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much! This is greatly appreciated. :) Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Your AfD closure
Heya, could I ask why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persistence (psychology) as no consensus? The two !voters both wanted a merge and nobody opposed it. If there is consensus to merge but no consensus on the direction, that is normally reflected in the closure. FaviFake (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good question. It could have gotten a soft merge per WP:QUORUM. With the nomination originally having been made incorrectly, however, even a soft merge did not feel appropriate. If any additional participation had occurred after relisting, it would have been easier to consider that sufficient for consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
With the nomination originally having been made incorrectly
Thanks for the response! What do you mean, exactly? The article was tagged starting from around 10 minutes after the discussion was created, that's all that matters. Then I fixed the tags 1 day later and for 23 days the discussion had the correct tags. FaviFake (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)- That day before the tags got fixed matters. Nobody else joined the discussion after that. Not one. Any other participation after that would have helped. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Seems like this should've been a no consensus close. I count maybe two guideline-compliant keep !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Because one person agreed with the nominator, then you and the nominator disagreed with several people? The keep arguments varied in quality but do include P+G. It's not a vote. Nevertheless, consensus does not mean unanimity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.