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.

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks for claifying. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! This is greatly appreciated. :) Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just a passing thought but I would have expected that two well-reasoned delete votes on top of the nomination statement + no objections or viable ATDs would be a consensus to delete rather than no quorum and soft delete. Not that it makes much difference in the scheme of things. We can always have the conversation again if need be so I'm not challenging your close, just wondering where the line is between delete by consensus and "soft delete". Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That one was a tough call, close enough to call it a coin toss. It could just as easily have been a "hard" delete. I'm not a big fan of soft deletion in the first place. In this case, there's just enough iffiness in the nomination ("potentially reliable") and responses ("I do not believe") and I've seen too many people argue about the value of something like the Times of India material that I would have preferred one more comment weighing in on it to go for hard delete. If it had already been renominated twice with the same amount of response, I'd have done the hard delete because others would at least have had opportunity to respond to the comments. That said, though, delete looked certain enough that I think a relist would have just been a waste of time. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to clarify the reasoning behind the no consensus close. It's already been established consensus that Valnet sources are content farms without merit as proof of notability - they essentially pay a few bucks for someone to write about anything, no matter how minor, solely to get search hits - but it seems to have been kept purely on the basis of being sourced to Valnet. In my opinion the keep !votes should have been tossed for that reason, and redirect have won easily. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There was no consensus regarding whether to ignore the sources. Without more people weighing in, an actual source analysis would have helped. Even if the keeps were ignored, there was no consensus on whether to delete, merge, or redirect. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I'd encourage you to examine the !voting pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karishma Mehta (2nd nomination). When multiple editors with long term low edit counts and talk pages full of notices on Hindutva related issues, pop into AfD discussions on a topic such as this, warning bells should sound. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That AfD is a serious mess. Anything other than simply relisting it at that point would go straight to DRV, in my opinion. The comments are not all from questionable users. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not concerned about the relist, I was concerned by your comment. There's a qualitative difference between a mess and meatpuppetry. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code word (communication) indicated that this topic be handled by Wiktionary. Instead of changing links to wikt:code word it looks like you just removed the link and a lot of other stuff in many cases. Was this intentional? ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I implemented the consensus of the AfD, which was to delete this from Wikipedia. What link are you referring to? What exactly is "a lot of other stuff"? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My read is the consensus was to replace the link to the deleted article with a Wiktionary link (codeword). The other stuff: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nobody said that. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Surv1v4l1st said Wikitionary can handle this one nicely. Other participants said WP:NOTDICTIONARY witch prominently mentions Wiktionary. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Wiktionary is the place for this topic. Nobody said to link it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess cleanup's on me then. ~Kvng (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply