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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This User talk page looks so empty that I thought I'd leave a thank you for your help at AFD today. I use to see you closing deletion discussions more often but we have lost a few regular closers since the spring. Thank you for your assistance. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Before my books, I used to be much more active regularly on Wikipedia. The barnstar is much appreciated. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karate_Do_Association_of_Bengal

Hey, could you explain/expand your reasoning behind the close. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It had already been relisted twice, and there still was no consensus. There was almost no interest shown in continued discussion this last round. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I do get that, I don't feel like the Keep !votes made any source backed arguments in favour keeping the article and I was personally surprised that it was closed as no-consensus. I will be listing this for deletion review. Sohom (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Latham Park

Please can you justify your close of Latham Park. Discounting !votes which offered no rationale, there was one keep, one redirect and one delete. I don’t see how you are justified closing at this stage given that the !keep rationale was disputed and source analysis had not been attempted. JMWt (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not discount !votes that offer no rationale. It is not a vote, of course, but those !votes actually did offer rationale by explicitly supporting a previous commenter's rationale. There was one redirect !vote, but there were no delete !votes. There was your delete nomination that received no support for outright deletion. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Latham Park

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Latham Park. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JMWt (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model

You closed this as a no consensus on final relist. I understand that in the final relist there was one delete and one keep !vote, but could you revisit this close perhaps? Or re-open to allow a second closer? The reason for asking this is that it appears to me that there was a clear deletion consensus, and certainly keep (which is the no consensus default) is the wrong result. Looking at the numbers there were (counting the nom. as delete):

• 4 deletes
• 2 keeps (1 of which was "keep or merge" and the other was "keep and convert" - see next line)
• 2 convert to disambiguation

There is a very clear consensus to do something here, and even if you stand by your no consensus, it would be very helpful if you could update your close summary toe xplain what the next step is to implement that consensus. To be clear, only one person argued that the list could be kept asis, and even they were content with some kind of merge. If this were closed as. delete, there would be nothing stopping someone creating a disambiguation. If not closed in that manner, the summary should explain how editors may implement a perceived consensus to move to such a disambiguation. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)