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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valmir Nafiu (3rd nomination)

@Doczilla:, Why did you relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valmir Nafiu (3rd nomination)? There were four keep votes and one delete vote (the other was by an account created on May 11 and 2 out of 3 of his edits came in football AFDs which is odd to say the least). Surely if this was the other way around it wouldn't have been relisted... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

They are not votes. They are !votes. Including the nominator, there were three deletes and four keeps. I realize that one account's recent creation looks odd, but unless actual shenanigans are confirmed, that is not a reason to ignore their input utterly. Their weak response is already sufficient reason to give it less weight anyway.

The nominator provides a detailed analysis when nominating. Nominator and the first delete !voter raise enough concerns about the sources to justify further discussion. The keep arguments are impressive, but they do not thoroughly trounce the delete arguments. Given the fact that this is the 3rd nomination, consensus - which means strength of policy-based argument overall - needs to be clearer and address the various points more thoroughly so maybe this can be put to rest. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, what do you look for when you decide whether to close an AFD discussion? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That is one incredibly broad question. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Temoc

I have no issues with your close, but I would like to make a request. If you look in the page history, you will note that the person who reverted my BLAR of the page was Okmrman, the same (now-blocked) person who nominated the page for a discussion, and that no one at the AfD opposed redirection. As such, I think I should be allowed to turn the page back into a redirect, without having to wait and start another discussion. As this would still be a BLAR, someone else could revert my redirection unilaterally. Thoughts? Mach61 10:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mach61.

I'll be glad to study this one again, especially if the nominator has been blocked. I will point out that lack of opposition is not the same as active support, but I'll review it all. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There needed to be some discussion, but there was almost none. Other than yourself and the nominator, only one person made a comment, but it did not endorse any position. It did not endorse redirect but instead simply speculated on where any redirect might go. No consensus still seems the appropriate outcome, although I would say without prejudice against turning it back into a redirect. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No Consensus on the Wikipedia: Article Hannah Ryder discussion

I created this article title and the article was nominated. I watched the article reedited to suit to NPOV, Notability guidelines. Confused by your closure in the light of the discussions during the last Relist. Gold Junior (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking over the AfD again, I guess you wanted a solid keep. Otherwise, I cannot see why you feel the need to pursue this. The article was not deleted. Your edit history suggests that you may be a fairly new editor, so please pardon me while I point out that a no consensus result means the article still exists. Regarding "the last Relist" which you mention, only one more person weighed in on the discussion since the previous relist. The relister asked for further opinions, plural. Regarding the edits you mention, those were made in the first couple of days after the AfD began, not since either relist. Neither of the admins who relisted were persuaded that a clear consensus was at hand, nor was I. There are some good sources in there, but the available information does not make this person appear to be notable.

You created the articles for both Development Reimagined and Hannah Ryder, and both start off reading like promotional copy. Even if they were subsequently revised, that still raises the question of how you knew about them in the first place and why you felt the need to create multiple articles promoting Development Reimagined. Maybe there is no COI, but you might see how it gives that impression. Not that it matters. That issue did not figure into my close at all. Maybe it should have, but we need to give people the benefit of the doubt. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Tasmanian state election

I have a hard time seeing how you arrived at keep, given the article has zero reliable secondary sources which discuss the 2028 Tasmanian election. That argument was brought during the discussion and it was not rebutted. TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Technical error. Seriously. Reverted. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So what now? Are you in the process of conducting a different close? TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm leaving that one for others. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. TarnishedPath^talk 07:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)