Doczilla
Joined 4 February 2006
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Saqib in topic AFD closures
|
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. |
Sunday, June 23
editI just noticed that Sunday, June 23, was missing from the AfD list. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
AFD closures
editHello Doc - sorry to bother you again, but, don't you think the AFD such as this should be closed as non-consensus, given the absence of policy-based keep votes? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which AfD? There is more than one. You and I have each been involved with far more than one. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Falah Party. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, they talk about policy-based things such as coverage and notability. A person can make a policy-based comment without citing the exact policy. Citing the policy does simplify discussion and helps others who are less familiar with the specific policies, but it is not required. Mainly, though, they were addressing the points in the nomination itself. If they argue that the nomination has not made its case, they do not have to make any further case themselves. It's why judges sometimes dismiss courtroom cases once the prosecution rests: If the prosecutation does not make its case, then it is not necessary to present a strong response. The keep !voters effectively argued that the nomination did not make its case. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Only one provided coverage to establish WP:GNG, but it fell short and I countered that. The other three simply voted to keep based on WP:ATA without clarifying how the subject meets GNG. Anyway, I'm not arguing the article should have been deleted, but the result should have been non-consensus. If you think your closure was adequate, I won't say more. Thank you! --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, they talk about policy-based things such as coverage and notability. A person can make a policy-based comment without citing the exact policy. Citing the policy does simplify discussion and helps others who are less familiar with the specific policies, but it is not required. Mainly, though, they were addressing the points in the nomination itself. If they argue that the nomination has not made its case, they do not have to make any further case themselves. It's why judges sometimes dismiss courtroom cases once the prosecution rests: If the prosecutation does not make its case, then it is not necessary to present a strong response. The keep !voters effectively argued that the nomination did not make its case. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Falah Party. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)