User talk:Doczilla

Firecat93 (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Firecat93 has given you a turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Thank you for your contributions. Happy Thanksgiving. Firecat93 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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)[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]

Deletion of Imaginary voyage

Hello Doczilla! You've just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary voyage as delete. I had done a second round of edits, to which probably there was no time yet that anyone at the deletion discussion could have taken them under consideration, and I was planning to do a bit more. Now I was wondering if you could comment if you dismissed those changes as, ahm, no improvements, possibly based on the earlier arguments by TompaDompa? Or thought it unlikely to change opinions based on no reactions to my first rounds of edits? Or had other reasons to close the discussion at this point in time? Depending on your arguments I might ask for a WP:REFUND and go to WP:AfC after the mentioned bit of further work, so that the earlier efforts were not completely in vain. What do you think? Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(user neglected to include heading/notice)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Altenmann >talk 23:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome: "There is not just consensus but unanimous agreement that this was a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion, and no tool misuse occurred." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168 Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: Thanks for restoring the article, and sorry this has caused a hassle inbetween. Mostly thanks to contributions by other editors the article has reached a stage where it was kept. I believe that the talk page may have been lost in the process of deletion and restoring. Would it perhaps be possible for you to look into this, and if there existed a talk page before, restore it? Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şifa University

Could you expand on the close rationale on this one at all? It had low participation, but not a single keep !vote. Closing as no consensus keeps it when the consensus was surely pretty clear to do something. I understand that low participation is a problem, but usually a soft delete is the answer to that. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than one respondent disagreed with you on points regarding the issue of deletion. One draftify + one delete without controversy could have added up to a soft delete, but one draftify + one delete + others disagreeing even if they did not !vote does not add up to a consensus. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the person replying to me also did not advocate keep. They suggested a redirect to List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges which I would be perfectly fine with. I missed there comment as they added it in the last relist period, but as a reply and without a !vote. However, a bold ref=direct would be disruptive, would it not? Could this be relisted one more time to allow discussion of that redirect suggestion? I expect we would have consensus for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted three times. The last two relists drew no additional discussion. Neither of those relisting admins would have relisted if they had perceived it as clear consensus.

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.) Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]