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. Could you elaborate why you closed as consensus to delete, please? Other than the nomination, there's a keep !vote with contested source analysis, two explicit merge !votes (which address the earlier source analysis), a reformulated delete vote that responds to the sourcing and draws attention to AtD, with the last two delete !votes essentially identical assertions that do not address the sources presented. While I'd agree there's consensus to move, there's not to "remove". Even a redirect would be possible given it is not an implausible search term. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Travis Langley, I wanted to personally thank you for your effort on the Message Exchange Bus page and for ending its deletion discussion. I truly appreciate that, and I believe it was a highly professional act to do. Therefore, I wanted to thank you personally. Best wishes, Sincerely, Taha Danesh (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]