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]

Hi DocZilla. A reminder that according to WP:RELIST when doing a third relist the relisting editor should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result. There was no such comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDC MarketFirst, though obviously the presence of the source table does give a reasonable justification for a third relist. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, of course, and I almost never do a third relist. As you say, though, the presence of the source table was the obvious reason. The part I was wary of mentioning as reason for relist is the fact that a close at that point would have raised the likelihood of DRV. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by the !votes, twice as many editors favored deletion compared to those who supported keeping the article. Looking at the given arguments, consensus still aligns with the editors supporting deletion, as noted by @Star Mississippi in their previous delete close:[1] In my read, consensus was clear that there wasn't enough to support a page, adding I do not see any other potential close at this stage.[2] With all of this in mind, why would you close it as "no consensus" when there is clearly consensus for deleting the article? — EarthDude (Talk) 06:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vote, of course, so this is about more than sheer numbers. The discussion remained contentious throughout. The first relister raised a concern that was not addressed adequately. More important, though, was the third relisting. Even though the third relister had originally closed it as delete, that relister accepted (gave into? I apologize for not picking a better verb there) an argument that there was sufficient controversy to reverse that close and relist it for a third time. If consensus were clear, it should never have had a third relisting, not without some substantial improvements, source analysis, etc., that would make it worth reconsidering the whole thing in new light. Delete !votes were more numerous and more detailed, yes, but a significant amount of keep argument remained. Discussion after the third relisting remained heated with different people citing different policies. I strongly suspect this thing was destined to wind up at DRV no matter which way the close went, but it was past time for it to close. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with your verb choice @Doczilla and thanks for ping @EarthDude

My on wiki time has been even more limited than normal and I figured a relist was a courtesy there since while I had time to reread to be sure I hadn't erred in my close, I didn't have time to do a full participant analysis that I would have at other times if someone queried my close. Realizing it really just kicked the can down the road. Star Mississippi 12:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doczilla, I respect the consensus at the Seraph Public Relations and Media AfD. Could you please userfy the deleted content to my user space at User:Young Dammy/Seraph Public Relations and Media? I would like to keep the references for potential future use if more significant independent coverage emerges. Thanks. Young Dammy (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I will not. That would have needed to be discussed as part of the AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doczilla,

I hope you are doing well.

I would like re-visit this nomination for Daniel Comeaux. To my recollection, the principal reason for its deletion was a lack of notability in his previous role of Special Agent in Charge for the Houston Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I would now contest that his notability would satisfy the relevant guidelines in his new role of the Chief of Police for Dallas, Texas. The there have been significant secondary sources published regarding him, his position, and/or his initiatives and decisions such as refusing the partner with ICE, the department itself is the 8th largest in the US, and various other chiefs of similarly sized departments (and former Dallas Police chiefs) are documented on Wikipedia.

I wanted to contact you before attempting to reconstruct the page. Any guidance you have would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

BucketSky10 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Because it was a soft delete, this is a completely appropriate request you're making. In the original AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Comeaux, click the link on this text in my closing remark: "request the article's undeletion." That will take you where you need to go to request undeletion of the article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will do just that. Thank you so much for your time and guidance! BucketSky10 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you marked this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamail Nadwi AfD discussion as Keep. I feel consensus was not achieved. As is the case for the sources, all sources were generating coverage in the same time following the event, which establishes this person's notability. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]