User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ron Ritzman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Could you (or one of your TPWs) please close this AfD?
You seem to be doing lots of AfD closing, so could you get this one here please? I'm the nominator, but my concerns have been sufficiently alleviated that I am satisfied to withdraw it. Thanks! Risker (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, too many outstanding delete !votes. This one unfortunately has to go the distance :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm? It was my understanding that if a nominator withdrew the nomination, the AfD was closed, no question; that's been my own experience before, but now that I poke about on the various pages, the concept of withdrawing a nomination doesn't even seem to be discussed. Nonetheless, it's been handled by someone else. Thanks for looking. Risker (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- M. Ritzman's right. That's not the way that it works. The nominator has no special status. If your mind is changed, note it in the discussion and ask the people who agreed with you whether their minds have been changed, too. There's really no need to steamroller the process through early and not give those others the chance to have their minds changed, too. That's not "respecting the consensus of other editors", nor is it working with other editors towards a consensus. You ignored Kitfoxxe, for example, who could well have been persuaded further if you'd allowed for that, and asked xem to revisit the discussion again after the further changes. When I do article rescues, I let the discussion run its full length in the normal way. People prefer being able to revise their opinions freely, so that they actually come to a consensus. Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I occasionally will as I did with Vanthaan Vendraanabove. See also here and here. (and yes invoking IAR is a stretch in these cases. It's just the easiest way to say "yes I know there is a rule"). However, as I told MQS above, (now archived) it's best if I run across these on my own and make my own judgment, independent of any "prompting" no matter how minor, on whether or not I should "steamroller the process". Ditto for closing early per WP:SNOW. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That third one was one of your famous re-listings, so there's no shortening of the discussion period there. ☺ For what it's worth, I've seen Armbrust change xyr mind in response to argument, most recently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 30#Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm as a matter of fact. So a note at User talk:Armbrust by the nominator, or indeed by Sodabottle or someone else, asking xem to revisit the discussion in light of what Sodabottle presented would possibly have achieved unanimity and handed you that instead. I sometimes do that; telling people that there's new information and asking them to revisit the discussion, letting them make up their minds for themselves and come to agreement of their own volition. I haven't done it as much of late, in part because I've been looking to see how frequently people notice subsequent article changes and discussion contributions on their own. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I occasionally will as I did with Vanthaan Vendraanabove. See also here and here. (and yes invoking IAR is a stretch in these cases. It's just the easiest way to say "yes I know there is a rule"). However, as I told MQS above, (now archived) it's best if I run across these on my own and make my own judgment, independent of any "prompting" no matter how minor, on whether or not I should "steamroller the process". Ditto for closing early per WP:SNOW. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- M. Ritzman's right. That's not the way that it works. The nominator has no special status. If your mind is changed, note it in the discussion and ask the people who agreed with you whether their minds have been changed, too. There's really no need to steamroller the process through early and not give those others the chance to have their minds changed, too. That's not "respecting the consensus of other editors", nor is it working with other editors towards a consensus. You ignored Kitfoxxe, for example, who could well have been persuaded further if you'd allowed for that, and asked xem to revisit the discussion again after the further changes. When I do article rescues, I let the discussion run its full length in the normal way. People prefer being able to revise their opinions freely, so that they actually come to a consensus. Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm? It was my understanding that if a nominator withdrew the nomination, the AfD was closed, no question; that's been my own experience before, but now that I poke about on the various pages, the concept of withdrawing a nomination doesn't even seem to be discussed. Nonetheless, it's been handled by someone else. Thanks for looking. Risker (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I find this all very funny, to be honest; I can certainly remember several deletion discussions that were closed precisely because the nominator withdrew, and most of them were far, far more contentious than this one. If I'd never seen it before, I certainly wouldn't have proposed it. Risker (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorrry abt removing the tag - I'd been keeping a watch on the date for the AfD and simply assumed that time was up. PiCo (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That was some good rationale. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, this was probably my first "coin-flipper". (though any admin who actually flips a coin shouldn't be an admin) Yes, I have been closing AFDs for years before some schmuck threw a mop and bucket through my window :) but I would not have touched these with a 10 foot pole. I didn't want to close these either preferring more routine stuff but it, and 3 more like it, were the only ones left on the log and someone had to do it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I decided to chime in with my own two cents on how the entries for terrorist attacks in this region are evaluated with some brief ramblings on my user page, User:Mtiffany71, and I'd like your feedback. Thanks. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm afraid that I don't agree with your "no consensus" decision in this debate. Rather than taking it to Deletion Review now, I thought I'd query it first. Ignoring the "SPA activity", 6 regular editors recommended to delete, and 3 recommended to keep. To post this as a no consensus rather than keep the debate open, or even close as a delete (one keep was the creator of the article, too), seems a little bit of an inclusionist decision. I voted in the AFD, so I can't as an administrator reverse your decision as a conflict of interest, so perhaps you could review it yourself. Esteffect (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I miscounted here - 5 recommended to delete, and 3 recommended to keep - but my objection still stands. I also add that the moderate SPA activity predominantly came after a 'good faith' discussion, so I don't believe it effected consensus in this instance. Esteffect (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to have closed it as delete, I think there is a good chance it would have gone to deletion review due to all the socking at the tail end. Therefore, I felt that the best course of action was to close it as "no consensus". I would prefer that there not even be a hint that SPA activity might have influenced the outcome of a deletion discussion, especially if the activity is on the deletion side. (though I know that this is not always possible) I think in this case a new AFD is the best course of action and since I was tempted to say this when closing, I have updated my closing rationale to allow a speedy renomination. It's likely a DRV in this would be closed as "relist" anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A script to close AfDs
Hi. When you deleted The Howard Stern Show games and bits just now, it left behind four redirects pointing to it. I have G8-ed them all, and I am not writing to complain, but to recommend to you an excellent script, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD which makes closing AfDs very easy. Among its facilities are a box you can tick to say "delete redirects" which it then does automatically. There is a companion script User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD which does what it says, so that you can scroll up the list of AfDs only seeing those that are still open. That one is not so foolproof - if you go away from the AfD log it loses its place and also turns itself off so that you have to turn it on again, but it's still useful. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that as I actually do use Mr Zman's script. However, I have been doing non-admin closes for years before my recent RFA and that box was always grayed out so I completely forgot it was there. I'll be more careful in the future. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, a shiny new button you didn't know you had! Congratulations on your new mop, by the way. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Talk about a "save" from the very brink of the abyss! I hate fighting through translating Spanish and Portugese... but damned if I was going to let this one die because no one else did it. That my work caused a 100% turnaround in opinion was quite gratifying. Thanks for the close. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I see that you relisted this, but I think that it can be speedily kept as the nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Sorry, I have a bad habit of missing those if they are sandwiched between other comments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm moving it to the incubator." Not true, I added a source (arguably) establishing notability, and noted this in my comment at the AfD page. GregorB (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I saw that and it may establish notability, that's why I closed it "no consensus". However, everything else in the article in question needs a source per WP:BLP. Once sources are added it can be moved back into mainspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay: "unsourced" meant "insufficient sources", not "no sources"... GregorB (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Removal of AfDM template and associated text
Hi RonR,
There is still an {{AfDM}} template + other bits and pieces at Imran Channa, tho the discussion was closed as keep yesterday. Can a non-admin remove these, and if so, what bits? I'm especially leery of going anywhere near the <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Imran Channa visual artist|date=26 September 2010|result='''keep'''}} --> bit!
Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done Sorry about that, this happened because the article was moved during the AFD. I close with a script that doesn't follow redirects and I usually check for this. In the future, you're welcome to fix these yourself if you wish. That commented part that says "administrator use only" really means "closer use only". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the re-listing... but it kinda saddens me that no one else has commented since then. In looking at the article itself, the only real flaw I perceive is perhaps in its correctable style, as it is far better sourced than many BLPs. And while the nominator had real concerns about a series of articles created by SPAs... I myself pretty much figure that once an article is ours, its OURS... and need be evaluated on its merits rather than on its author's motivations. When I get home from work tonight, I'll go through it and give it a cleaning up... and post it on a few other delsorts... and then may even ask the nominator to reconsider. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I closed it as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate". It was next on the list. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| I, -- Cirt (talk), award The Admin's Barnstar to Ron Ritzman, for continued admin efforts in the area of closure of deletion discussions. These contributions to the project benefit the community and are valued by the project. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the helpful edits you do around here. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're doing good work, Ron! Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. and I haven't even used the block button yet --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're doing good work, Ron! Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Another AfD query...
Ron,
I would be grateful for a bit more explanation for your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_bookstore,_Gaza, the article is now at The_Teacher's_Bookshop. I don't feel like the points I made were rebuffed so would like to know how you reached your conclusion. I'm sorry to bring this to you late, but I've been away. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- My primary role here is to decide whether or not to hit the delete button. Almost everybody endorsing your position was advocating a "merge". The only "pure" delete !voter was concerned about POV issues which can be addressed by the normal editing process and the issue of merging can be discussed on the talk page, If I had punched "delete" on this one then we'd be at DRV overturning it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so then could you tell me how the consensus was to keep and not to merge? Most of the keep !votes were as pers, or argued that NOTNEWS doesn't apply for bookshops, even though all of its sourcing is to news of the manager's killing. I'm not trying to be a pest, although am undoubtedly failing! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS applies to "events". The subject is a bookstore where several newsworthy events have happened, the murder of the store manager being the most notable example. About a merge close, I only do that if the consensus to merge is overwhelming and I don't see that it was here. Also, the only real difference between a "keep" and a "merge" close is a big purple tag on the article. Closing "keep" doesn't prevent a merge and a close as "merge" doesn't guarantee that the article will be merged. (there's no real way of enforcing it) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time. I think the article is still really skewed towards the murder of the manager, and just trying to figure out if my "opinion" is essentially wrong in terms of policies and guidelines or whether the consensus of I-P-interested editors is correct. I don't want to wade in and corrected! Thanks again, Bigger digger (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS applies to "events". The subject is a bookstore where several newsworthy events have happened, the murder of the store manager being the most notable example. About a merge close, I only do that if the consensus to merge is overwhelming and I don't see that it was here. Also, the only real difference between a "keep" and a "merge" close is a big purple tag on the article. Closing "keep" doesn't prevent a merge and a close as "merge" doesn't guarantee that the article will be merged. (there's no real way of enforcing it) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so then could you tell me how the consensus was to keep and not to merge? Most of the keep !votes were as pers, or argued that NOTNEWS doesn't apply for bookshops, even though all of its sourcing is to news of the manager's killing. I'm not trying to be a pest, although am undoubtedly failing! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Prompt closure
I am considering closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang promptly. Its 7-day period has just expired, an hour or two ago, by my calculations. I have asked Chaser whether xe has any objections. Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources of Notability for Tapioca Express (Re-Evaluate Before Snowballing Happens)
| collapsed text of references for readibility |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
- Dammit! The close was correct based on the discussion, but that chain is notable, it just needed some TLC, and Frostea made things worse for himself with his style. A chain with over 50 locations, which has been profiled, e.g., [1][2], etc. There are sufficient sources out there, I guess no one cared about this one. Amusingly, its primary competitor Lollicup has had an article for over 6 years, which no one seems to have noticed. I'd like to get this one userified to me for improvement if possible. Even if I can't salvage it, I can use it to create a decent paragraph about the US chains to place under Bubble_tea#History--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done Userfied to User:Milowent/Tapioca Express and you're right, there was really no other way this could have been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Milowent if you were there from the beginning, when I noticed the edit warring between User:Kuru and User:Tapex, then maybe things would've been different, all of my contributions that included these above mentioned sources, were reverted by User:Jayron32 if you would like to see my version please simply see User:FrosteaTheSnowman/Tapioca Express Apparently everyone who vouched for delete only referred to the barebones article that User:Kuru and User:Jayron32 created/reverted. Obviously, biased to their case, that barebones article provided few sources, with questionable notability. When I attempted to convey my POV, Kuru issued me a "Final Warning" without any prior warnings or even mentions on my talk page about my contributions as, what he thought, was "fluffery". You can judge for yourself after seeing User:FrosteaTheSnowman/Tapioca Express. Furthermore, I said many times to User:Kuru that if he felt my contirbutions were fluffery, he could simply source and contribute as well to grow Wikipedia knowledge, instead of reverting to (barebones) a previous edit from years ago. Thank you gentlemen, and I agree, Milowent, Tapioca Express deserves a decent article, if not, Lollicup and Quickly should also be deleted on the same grounds. FrosteaTheSnowman (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Frostea, is that you trying to nominate Quickly for deletion. If so don't do it, only ill will come to you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The date on that tag is wrong. I asked for sources for that article on 2006-01-30. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
G'day there - I was going to close it the same way but it's not a BLP! --Mkativerata (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I feel stupid. Article restored and the AFD reverted. I don't like to close "1 voters" as delete unless they're BLPs but if you want to then be my guest :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I take that back, you !voted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd axe this one as if it was an expired prod, but I understand many disagree with doing that. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I take that back, you !voted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series, which you closed, is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 7#Untitled 2011 AMC television series. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done DRV closed, AFD restored and relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
G'Day. Per Wikipedia Policy, an article up for deletion should definitely have more than 6 hours of review. There was no reason for a speedy close. You stated: "The result was speedy close. Obvious violation of WP:POINT."
Who violated it?
Please state the "obvious" proof of this violation that puts the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?
The article Quickly clearly has a lack of content, little verifiability with only 1 reference, and almost no notability per Notability_in_Wikipedia. Of course, an admin such as yourself should already realize this. I strongly suggest that you approach each deletion review with a clean slate and remain objective per wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs)
- You said above Tapioca Express deserves a decent article, if not, Lollicup and Quickly should also be deleted on the same grounds. You then nominate Quickly for deletion which is something you would likely not have done if Tapioca Express had not been deleted. It may be possible that Quickly should be considered for deletion. If so then somebody else will nominate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well for one, an admin should not assume what one would have likely or would not have likely done, it is unprofessional to approach a, what should be objective, situation with a pre-concieved notion. The reason on the AfD was completely viable and on point per Wikipedia's policy for deletion.
May be possible? Do you not see the lack of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Verifiability in that article? As one who serves for Wikipedia's greater good - Why don't you nominate it, instead of waiting for someone else?
Best RegardsFrosteaTheSnowman (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Curious
Hi. I was just curious why in closing a "keep" you wrote "Note that a keep close doesn't prevent us from revisiting this issue later". That's of course always the case (though the fact that notability is not fleeting is also the case). Why would you stress it here? Is that something you always include in a keep close? I would find it peculiar in a no consensus close, but even more so in a keep. I was curious why you would say it in that close. It seems to undermine the close and invite further time spent on the same issue we already spent time on, without any rationale for undermining it. IMHO. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- No I normally don't but the weird thing about WP:NOTNEWS is that sometimes only time will tell if something has "enduring notability". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tx. I better understand where you were coming from.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Terrence Webster-Doyle rewrite
Ron, I wanted to see if my proposed rewrite would satisfy the NPOV, and meet the criteria of Biography of Living Person, Author, Educator, or whatever other Category it belongs under. Please take a look at my User Talk page, and see if it would pass muster, feel free to edit or add notes for me. Thank you for your time. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- While looking through the deleted history of the article, I noticed that one of the diffs for your edits contained the phrase Dr Doyle asked me to trim out all the unneccesary stuff. I would prefer that any version of this article I restored have no connection to the subject in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct, I do know him, but as I'd stated in the AfD, it was as a Technical resource he reached out to, and I actually deleted a massive chunk of it, not added to it (he does not know how to edit articles himself). Please look at my Talk page, my proposed version is only a paragraph in length, all clearly cited, and a simple summary of his works, their recognition, and their application. Thank you.RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- At this point I would recommend creating a sub page User:RennaissanceWarfare/Terrence Webster-Doyle. copying your draft there and then submitting it to deletion review --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ron, I have created the page as you suggested, however was unable to discern the proper way to insert a DRV request. I also was thinking along the lines of Carrite's suggestion that letting the old die away with the new massivly redacted version might just be best. Also, as you yourself have expressed, my proximity to the subject has been attacked (irrespective of the actual nature of the changes I made), and I'd rather not have the baby tossed out with the bathwater by my proximity. Since you weren't part of the discussion in the AfD's, merely the closer, I know you have no horse in the race, as it were, and simply request you to look at my proposed entry at User:RennaissanceWarfare/Terrence Webster-Doyle as a single, whole entity unto itself, and put on your Admin hat and ask the question, "does this merit inclusion, does it meet the standards, does it serve to correct the prior objections that it was overstuffed, spam, non-notable and a vanity page". If you could give it 5 minutes of your time in that capacity, and give me the nod that it's fine, notes to improve, or an indication that it's innapropriate, that's all I ask. If you think it passes muster, I'll simply recreate the article with this version. Thank you. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- At this point I would recommend creating a sub page User:RennaissanceWarfare/Terrence Webster-Doyle. copying your draft there and then submitting it to deletion review --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct, I do know him, but as I'd stated in the AfD, it was as a Technical resource he reached out to, and I actually deleted a massive chunk of it, not added to it (he does not know how to edit articles himself). Please look at my Talk page, my proposed version is only a paragraph in length, all clearly cited, and a simple summary of his works, their recognition, and their application. Thank you.RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible non-admin close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillroy Paulse?
Hi Ron R,
First of all, apologies for editing your Page notice uninvited.
- It would seem that the Hillroy Paulse AfD is a candidate for a non-admin close tomorrow UTC, and possibly even right now. Is this correct?
- Also, could you possibly point me towards the script you used for NAC-s?
Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- It might be and in when I started out doing NACs I would have punched this without thinking. However, now the fact that the article is a BLP still lacking in sources would give me some pause. Currently the consensus is a clear keep but since you !voted, you should not be the one to close it and it's not quite a WP:SNOW candidate.
- The script that most closers use, both admins and NACers is this one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your guidance - very much appreciated.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your comment about closing — I don't dare close a discussion. I've never figured out how to do it properly, and the one time I tried, I somehow closed every discussion in the entire day's AFD log. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think this article should not be deleted until more research is done. Due to the variations in spelling of his name the links at the top of the deletion page would not bring up results, as they only searched for the spelling Valery Nikolaevsky , and not Valerij Nikolaevskij. This gave an impression that the author was not notable. However, the latter spelling as I pointed out in the deletion discussion yielded more results, which where significant, and cast new light on his notability, for example the author/poet has been a member of P.E.N. (Poets, Essayists and Novelists). I would be grateful if you would reconsider this deletion request, and allowing the article to remain until more research is done. Kind Regards 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would have userfied it but you don't have an account, therefore I restored the article and moved it to the incubator. You can find it here. If you can present sources that satisfy WP:N then you can make your case to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou for moving it to the article incubator. I did not know that could be done, so i'm learning new stuff about wikipedia too. Is it possible while it is there to request any help with regard to sources, as I cannot read russian or german, which is primarily the language that comes up in searches with regard to this writer. An editor who has greater familiarity with Russian poets/writers of the second half of the 20th century would be likely to know where to look for material. Can the article be given {{expert-subject}} status while in the incubator? I would add this template, but want to check first if its ok?62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also may I ask that in the Incubator template in article, the spelling of his name be changed to Valerij Nikolaevskij, for purpose of searching. Once again thankyou. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll look into this further when I get back from the salt mines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also may I ask that in the Incubator template in article, the spelling of his name be changed to Valerij Nikolaevskij, for purpose of searching. Once again thankyou. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, in the meantime I have added a couple of {{expert-subject}} templates for poetry and history. If there is any problem let me know. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sir, can you please tell me why you deleted the page of Hector Kim? That particular page talks about a real-life Korean American photographer. Before you deleted the Hector Kim page, I was reading it and I found real references. So can you please tell me why would you delete this page despite it having references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallnight12 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Because there was a consensus to do so at the AFD. It was felt that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I plan to DRV that decision unless you can detail how the valid arguments made there add up to a no consensus outcome. The Afd is clearly a NOT#NEWS case, and the only even remotely valid keep votes did not come close to addressing or rebutting that, they barely even get beyond basic assertion that there was 'massive' or 'widespread' coverage out there which 'clearly' means it's notable, and simply ignored the fact that the GNG is a presumption, which does not overide NOT, which is a policy. Wikipedia doesn't need closures that endorse this kind of weak argumentation or overides policies in favour of guidelines. There were more than enough cogent arguments form the POV of WP:NOT to be able to call that a consensus to delete. I would be particularly interested in for example how you weighed up Dream Focus' non-response to the two on point objections to his keep, again, based on the simple assertion that there was "ample coverage", in terms of whether he satisfactorally rebutted the NOT#NEWS argument. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Likewise, I am absolutely staggered that you closed as a consensus to keep. Given your rationale (which, like Mick, I don't particularly agree with) I could perhaps have understood "no consensus" but "keep". Seriously? I urge you to revisit. Regards, wjematherbigissue 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I read his short closing rationale as being a no consensus default to keep rationale. I know Mick might go to DRV no matter what, but its hard to say this close was not within the range of admin discretion. Its fair to say, based on the overall discussion, that you could renominate this in a few months without much prejudice if you chose.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- One thing I am certain about is that if I were to push the delete button on this one we would be at DRV overturning it. Yes AFD is not a "vote" but that doesn't mean that the keep vs delete count is meaningless. I was tempted to close this "no consensus" because some of the keep !votes were rather weak but so were some of the delete "votes". Particularly the ones that said must we really sully the article space with this kind of crap and Ask someone 5 years from now: "Hey, remember that 2010 Ryder Cup photograph with Tiger Woods?" The blank stare on their face will demonstrate how this fails WP:NTEMP. (apparently using the crystal ball that WP is not) I would have no objection to revisiting this issue in a few months because sometimes time is the only thing that can show if something is "just the news". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That still does not explain why you closed as keep. Was it as Milowent said "by default"? If it was then frankly that is pretty poor. The no consensus option is there for a reason. I must also question your reading of policy and guidelines, which seems very different from mine. Relevant portions: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability..." (from WP:NOT) and "Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) - whether or not ... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (from (WP:EVENT). As I said during the AfD discussion, not having a crystal ball we must surely delete now and recreate only when it is clear that the subject passes our inclusion criteria. From your final sentence, I presume you must disagree with my view on procedure? wjematherbigissue 07:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not that I necessarily disagree with it but others do by !voting "keep" in various AFDs where NOTNEWS is an issue. If the community says "delete it til it's shown to be not "just a flash in the pan"" then the article gets deleted. In this one, the community said "wait and see". (when in doubt, don't delete). Compare to this AFD where there was a consensus (barely) that the event was "just the news". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Policy states that there must be evidence of enduring significance now, not just a crystal ball assertion that there will be in the future. Otherwise how long do we wait for such an occurrence, one month, two, a year, 5 years? That just wouldn't work, which is why we delete now, recreate later if and when true notability can be established. The policy is absolutely clear on this one, and any number of people !voting in contravention of it should not be allowed to sway the result. If people want to change policy then there are venues available to them. Individual XfDs are not the place to be deciding policy change in this manner. wjematherbigissue 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not that I necessarily disagree with it but others do by !voting "keep" in various AFDs where NOTNEWS is an issue. If the community says "delete it til it's shown to be not "just a flash in the pan"" then the article gets deleted. In this one, the community said "wait and see". (when in doubt, don't delete). Compare to this AFD where there was a consensus (barely) that the event was "just the news". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That still does not explain why you closed as keep. Was it as Milowent said "by default"? If it was then frankly that is pretty poor. The no consensus option is there for a reason. I must also question your reading of policy and guidelines, which seems very different from mine. Relevant portions: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability..." (from WP:NOT) and "Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) - whether or not ... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (from (WP:EVENT). As I said during the AfD discussion, not having a crystal ball we must surely delete now and recreate only when it is clear that the subject passes our inclusion criteria. From your final sentence, I presume you must disagree with my view on procedure? wjematherbigissue 07:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- One thing I am certain about is that if I were to push the delete button on this one we would be at DRV overturning it. Yes AFD is not a "vote" but that doesn't mean that the keep vs delete count is meaningless. I was tempted to close this "no consensus" because some of the keep !votes were rather weak but so were some of the delete "votes". Particularly the ones that said must we really sully the article space with this kind of crap and Ask someone 5 years from now: "Hey, remember that 2010 Ryder Cup photograph with Tiger Woods?" The blank stare on their face will demonstrate how this fails WP:NTEMP. (apparently using the crystal ball that WP is not) I would have no objection to revisiting this issue in a few months because sometimes time is the only thing that can show if something is "just the news". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I read his short closing rationale as being a no consensus default to keep rationale. I know Mick might go to DRV no matter what, but its hard to say this close was not within the range of admin discretion. Its fair to say, based on the overall discussion, that you could renominate this in a few months without much prejudice if you chose.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I re-examined the discussion and I have decided to stand by my close. Yes some of the "keep" arguments were weak but some had good points. If anybody still feels that this could have been closed as "delete", then they are welcome to have it re-evaluated at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your decision was valid - there was definitely no consensus to delete. I kept a close eye on this AfD and you made the correct call IMO. Glen 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- So done. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#2010 Ryder Cup photograph. Regards, wjematherbigissue 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, what a waste of time that was. Lack of explanation of the Afd closure glossed over at DRV, which was yet again, closed with zero explanation. I am still none the wiser as to which keep arguments you even thought were valid, let alone how the delete ones weren't, or how you dealt with anything more nuanced in weighing up the debate, like counter-points and rebuttals. You will see from the Drv that I didn't even realise until too late that it's not possible to even call that Afd a 60% keep outcome, without relying on a basic vote count and including all the clueless votes aswell (and by my reckoning, there were 5 of those on the keep side and just 2 on the delete side). And that's being generous, counting the merges as keeps, and calling 'it made CNN' and the like a 'valid' argument, in a NOT#NEWS debate of all things. That was a 'no consensus' closure all day every day. Without a radical change in NOT, a repeat Afd 6 months down the line citing NOT#NEWS or EVENT has absolutely no chance of succeeding thanks to your keep close, and NTEMP, whether there is any more coverage or not. If that was what you intended by that closure, you have got it wrong. If not, you got it totally wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Well, what a waste of time that was." Indeed. Thankfully I didn't even notice it went to DRV, but it was overwhelmingly endorsed I see.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it was not. Unless you saw something I didn't, for example anybody pointing out a single example of a decent keep vote, or actually explaining how the debate was weighted, or even how it was a keep when it's not even 60% in favour even when you include the idiots votes. You could also try and find anyone actually proving this idea that you can renominate a keep outcome in 6 months on the same grounds, and that in reality if that did happen, nobody would tell you to just piss off. You'll be looking for a long time, because of course, it doesn't exist anywhere, because it's a dumb idea that shows zero understanding of what notability actualy is. And as ever for a Drv, doing any of this was all too difficult a task for most people, and there is always an admin like Cirt on hand to close it without bothering himself with such trifles, or even saying a word in explanation. So yes, you can be triumphant all you want. Hooray for Wikipedia and it's mission. I see there is yet another internet photo in the news already, it's already got "significant coverage". Are you going to create the article or shall I? I'm thinking Otis the smiling Hippo is a good title. Because they are all automatically notable right as soon as they make the news? Ha ha ha. It would be half way funny if it wasn't such a complete joke. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You gave no rationale for this decision. I have proven that the subject was notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the discussion was open for 7 days with everybody but you saying "delete", the relevant policy being WP:BLP1E. This couldn't have been closed any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- True and AFD is not a vote. They are decided by "rough consensus" and the consensus was clearly "delete" and the arguments were soundly based on policy. However, if you still believe that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this subject then you are welcome to have the decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- William -- I love that phil had an article, and I spent some time expanding it, but I knew it didn't have a shot, sadly. Ron really couldn't close any other way. I will probably post the text of that article on my sorry excuse for a blog next week sometime if you need a phil-fix! :-)--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- True and AFD is not a vote. They are decided by "rough consensus" and the consensus was clearly "delete" and the arguments were soundly based on policy. However, if you still believe that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this subject then you are welcome to have the decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for using common sense and have relisted this item [3] for discussion again.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion was delete, but the article itself has not been deleted.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it was recreated and taken to AFD again. I considered ringing it up as a G4 but since the text is different I decided to let the second AFD run for a while and see what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, got it, thanks.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete my page I had already asked regarding more references and expected an answer not the whole page to be deleted, that took a long time to put together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.211 (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The only edit I show for you is to my talk page. Where did you make this request? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This afternoon I added more reliable sources (Stanford University) to the site and updated the log accordingly. We believe to have made some good progress and points why this article should not be deleted. While NASA is not an outside source, it still is a source. openNASA and Stanford University are both reliable outside sources and as indicated in the discussions Boeing is releasing a press-release next week which we are also planning on using as a source. Could you please advise how to proceed now? Thank you Romeoch (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've userfied it to User:Romeoch/Camilla Corona SDO. If reliable sources appear then they can be added to the article and then the draft can be submitted to deletion review. Note that "press releases" are not normally considered reliable sources for the purpose of WP:N. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ron, thank you. Since this was my first article, and we here at the NASA SDO Team think it was an appropriate one, introducing a very successful Education and Public Outreach tool, where can I now find my article so I can make further improvements and then submit for deletion review? We are still surprised that sport team mascots are fine, even though they are used for financial gain purposes, while a an educational mascot seems to be such an issue. Thanks for your assistance in this (learning) process. Romeoch (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's at the page hyperlinked to by M. Ritzman above. The problem is not the type of mascot. It's whether the world has properly documented something. Human knowledge is famously uneven, incomplete, lumpy, and unfair. When one is an encyclopaedist, systematizing and summarizing documented and recorded human knowledge, one simply has to accept that fact. A subject has to have been properly documented, in depth, by identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who had factual accuracy as their goals, in published works. Changing human knowledge, so that the world knows about something that it hadn't theretofore documented or noticed, is outwith the province of an encyclopaedia. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, per your use of and we here at the NASA SDO, you also should read our guideline on conflict of interest. One informal indicator that a subject may be notable and merit an article is if somebody not connected with the subject chooses to write one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's at the page hyperlinked to by M. Ritzman above. The problem is not the type of mascot. It's whether the world has properly documented something. Human knowledge is famously uneven, incomplete, lumpy, and unfair. When one is an encyclopaedist, systematizing and summarizing documented and recorded human knowledge, one simply has to accept that fact. A subject has to have been properly documented, in depth, by identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who had factual accuracy as their goals, in published works. Changing human knowledge, so that the world knows about something that it hadn't theretofore documented or noticed, is outwith the province of an encyclopaedia. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ron, thank you. Since this was my first article, and we here at the NASA SDO Team think it was an appropriate one, introducing a very successful Education and Public Outreach tool, where can I now find my article so I can make further improvements and then submit for deletion review? We are still surprised that sport team mascots are fine, even though they are used for financial gain purposes, while a an educational mascot seems to be such an issue. Thanks for your assistance in this (learning) process. Romeoch (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
International High IQ Society
Here are some reliable sources for you to re-evaluate the pertinence of the IHIQS Wikipedia entry and reinstate the page.
- Interview by Forbes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miGORIVpqPY&feature=related
- Article on the Observer http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/oct/26/highereducation.uk
- Battle of the Brains on BBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikv_NmY3-U&feature=related
Also, a 2003 article in Details magazine which I couldn't find in my 10 minute search of the Internet using Google, but it's out there.
Thank you and kind regards,
Jean-Pierre Levac IHIQS member #92 Managing Director, Hamilton Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.251.45 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that Starblind (talk · contribs) is the person needing convincing of this, given xyr participation and opinions in both discussions, not Ron Ritzman, who merely enacted the consensus. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey there Ron Ritzman, thank you for carrying out the AFD close relating to article, Jessica Feshbach. I know that the respondents to the AFD were unanimous in the consensus (apart from the nominator), but perhaps due to the controversial nature of the subject matter - you could elaborate on your close comments, even just a tad bit? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you!!! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Witney and District League 2010
Just wondering why you put the page 'Witney and District League 2010' season page up for deletion, What seems to be the problem of the page?
Thanks, Shaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblueshaun (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Go and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witney and District League 2010-11 to see the problem that six of your fellow editors had with the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ron, Recently you deleted an article called Aqua Data Studio. I would to ask you considering restoration of this article because the deletion discussion was controversial and the final argument was not accurate. After the lack of references and citations had been pointed out, references to a number of books having citations regarding the subject of the article were added. The final comment was made saying “Delete until legitimate sourcing clearly meeting WP:RS is provided. Press releases, raw search results and mentions in non-notable books do not establish notability”. I cannot agree with this comment beacuase WP:RS guidelines specify reliable sources of information and questionable sources. The referenced books are from the publishers such as O'Reilly, Elsevier, Sams. These publishing agencies are not “Self-published and questionable sources” as it described in the WP:RS guidelines. On contrary they are credible, independent and neutral; hence the last comment in the deletion discussion is groundless and cannot be prevailing in the discussion resolution. All other critics regarding the article was addressed by adding the references.
--71.172.113.130 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Article restored and the AFD relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Forgotten AfD?
Hi RR, I wasn't sure who to come to on this one but I know you close AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League satellite decoder case came to a consensus some time ago, and I have gone ahead with the merge suggested. But the debate has not been closed. I note that the page is not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 9, which may be the reason why it has been neglected. Thanks. —Half Price 10:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, it's been closed now, possibly because someone saw this. Thanks. —Half Price 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Shoto Tanemura Page
Hello,
You deleted the Shoto Tanemura Page on the basis that it lacked proper independent proof of his grand mastership of all the styles claimed on the page and that was therefore not enough to create notability. I will not argue that point, although having met the person, I believe that the statements are true. I would argue that his teaching martial arts indirectly to the schools in approximately 30 countries, that he is the head of the Genbukan World Ninpo Bugei Federation and that as such has given seminars across the world and has been subject to articles in Black Belt (1985, 1986), Karate Bushido, and that he is a published author (Ninpo Secrets: Philosophy, History and Techniques, Shoto T. Tanemura, ISBN-10: 0972088423) should entitle him a page on wikipedia as notability. I would therefore appreciate if you could restore the page.
Thanks
Achapeau (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Alexandre Chapeaux, October 28th, 2010
- I deleted that page because there was a consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shōtō Tanemura. What you say may be true but it also has to be verifiable or we can't have an article on the subject. WP:VNT has more on this issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Request
Hello! I have tagged my subpage: User:Armbrust/EditCounterOptIn.js with {{db-user}}, but it didn't work. Could you delete it for me? Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhub Communications
Can you please explain why you deleted Rhub Communications' article?Happysantacruz (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhub communications. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Close fixes
Thanks for that—I haven't closed an AfD in probably 3 years! — Deckiller 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- And to think I currently have an edit window open on your talk page telling you about them :) The {{afdtop}} template goes above everything including the article title. If you're going to be closing a lot of AFDs then you might find this script useful. It does all the "dirty work" for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: yuri rutman deletion
I am curious as to where you correlated the Yuri Rutman Wikipedia article with a "spammer" and for dubious sources as a way to delete a profile on him. It seems there are several Yuri Rutman's on google. You also referenced "not prominent or questionable sources" Please verify your sources on imdbpro.com and ask how him producing a film that is being directed by one of the most prominent film directors in the world and is being co-produced by company that recently made a Jessica Biel and Milla Jovovich film is "dubious" along with 6 other films his company is currently producing and financing. IMDBPRO does not list credits unless they do extensive due diligence. Further, you referenced that press releases were written by him or his company. Please check your facts again when MSNBC recently profiled him at http://www.cnbc.com/id/39342145/Investing_In_The_Big_Screen_Can_Be_A_Profitable_Story as well as numerous prominent private equity and hedge fund publications http://www.hedgeweek.com/2010/02/02/32989/noci-targets-hedge-fund-investors-film-finance. These publications do extensive due diligence. If there is some sort of personal bias between you and one of the Mr. Rutman's which is indexed more than ten years ago in a newsgroup post your referenced, its highly suggested you check your facts and do your homework before arbitrarily trying to identify one individual as someone else and can fall into an area of slander and libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.196.84 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Two points...
- I did not close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Rutman or delete the article, Cirt did.
- I did not say he was the "Yuri Rutman" referenced in my 10 year old newsgroup post, Truebobjohnson did. I blanked the AFD per WP:BLP because I do not think he is that person. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe this AfD also was supposed to include 2026 Winter Olympics. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete The BlackCommentator?
Hi Ron,
I just noticed that yesterday, you deleted The BlackCommentator. Why did you do that? We've been in business since 2002, have readers in nearly every country on the globe and are, this coming week, publishing our 400th issue. Especially with the 400th issue, there may be more people than usual interested in reading what I had placed in Wikipedia. Kindly restore the post. Thank you.76.98.165.75 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Nancy Littlefield, Managing Editor, BlackCommentator.com 10/31/2010
- I deleted it because there was a unanimous consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Commentator. If it were not me then it would be another administrator but it couldn't have been closed any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
question
Hi. You kept relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison - and now it seems that someone has closed the debate before a full week has passed - in the middle of discussion, and after two people very quickly voted 'delete' out of nowhere, after 2 weeks of inactivity. Should this have been allowed to at least reach the end of the third week, and at least for the discussion to end? Let me know if I'm asking in the wrong place.. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted AFDs can be closed anytime an administrator determines that a consensus has been reached. They do not have to run another full 7 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ron. Your closing rationale at this AfD discussion is a bit confusing for me, particularly the BLP part of it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
FlexiProvider
Dear Admin (Ron Ritzman),
FlexiProvider is a free cryptographic java provider. It needs your help to be more famus and more usable. I am still new on wikipedia and I will try to solve the problems that make you delet it.
Could you please restore the FlexiProvider page?
Best Regards, Mohamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaied75 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have to decline this for several reasons...
- Substantial amounts of this article were lifted from this website so it violates our policy on copyrights.
- The article was an advertisement not an encyclopedia article per the phrase The goal of our project. The pronouns "we" and "our" in an article are red flags that it's an ad.
- Per your use of the phrase It needs your help to be more famus. The different but related term we use here is notability. A subject has to become notable before it gets an article here. An informal indication that a subject might be notable is if someone "unrelated to the subject" chooses to write an article on it and that's one of the reasons we discourage subjects writing about themselves or subjects they have a close connection to.
- Therefore, I cannot restore this version of the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Fire It Up (EP)
Salt it too please? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see if it gets created again first as RL0919 chose not to salt. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
edit conflicts
Hi there, I'm trying to list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Diaz (announcer) on the log page (TW failed for some reason), but I keep getting edit conflicts. Can you please list it when you are finished relisting. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You extended an AFD. One user keeps removing AFD tag in article though
An AFD is still open[4], you extending it for further discussion, but one user keeps erasing the AFD notice on the article page. I tried reverting him, but he just did it again, and left me a message on my talk page [5]. He claims he was notified that the discussion was over. Dream Focus 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Incubating: Female Servants in 18th Century England
Greetings! Female Servants in 18th Century England has been accepted into the Article Incubator. Please see the talk page for the entry review and suggested tasks. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)