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]

Hello Doczilla. With reference to your closure of the The Peel Club AfD, and considering that your deletion was endorsed and the page re-deleted after having been tempundeleted,

please generate a page such as Talk:List of Regular Show episodes/attribution history at Talk:Glasgow University Conservative Association/attribution history (or under a similarly-titled subpage), containing the attribution history of The Peel Club,

because content was merged from the deleted The Peel Club article into Glasgow University Conservative Association during the interval beginning with the improper undoing of the tempundel notice and ending with the redirection of the page and restoration of the same notice.

The way the things are now, attributability for the all of the content at the Glasgow University Conservative Association article is not being maintained, because Special:Diff/1244174242 says to see the source page's history for who the authors of the added content are, which can not be done because it has been (duly) deleted. This issue was mentioned toward the end of the DRV discussion.

Outputting attribution history as text is one of the non-ordinary but accepted ways to provide attribution.

Regards,—Alalch E. 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, my first thought concerns that "because Special:Diff/1244174242 says to see the source page's history" bit: You're the one who wrote that, so you cited yourself in order to back up your own request. I'll read the rest of this again tomorrow. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to decline. You might get someone else to do it, but my role in this AfD was as closer and neither the AfD nor the DRV closed as merge. Merge was not really even discussed as an option during the !vote.

Some editors abused the tempundelete in order to merge their self-promotional material into another article anyway. If the prior history seemed important, someone who was concerned about that (and who knew those club members were cheating by merging without awaiting the outcome of the DRV that one of them had requested) had plenty of time to copy it during the extended period of temporary undeletion.

You appropriately cited precedent with that List of Regular Show episodes example, but an exception is not the rule. The history does not normally remain public when an article is deleted. I prefer not to become part of deciding when exceptions should or should not happen. Sorry. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Just following up to say that the matter is resolved now. —Alalch E. 12:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]