Hi RR,
At the end of the day, Cricket was the winner. Put the article I started up for deletion as I thought it didn't meet notability, particularly WP:BLP1E. Jolly good show, old bean!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ron, I'm not sure I understand your AFD closure here. Did you close the discussion with a keep result or did you relist it, as the bottom comments seem to indicate? You've shown the result as a keep on the article talk page, with an incorrect link to the AFD discussion (which I hope I've corrected) but no indication of a relisting. Perhaps I'm not familiar with the intricacies... Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I use a script to close AFDs and it sometimes messes up the talk page tagging and points it to the wrong debate when an article has been nominated more then once. I relisted it first and then decided to close it to avoid a repeat of this incident where I relisted a debate started by a disruptive SPA and it led to a drama storm. If someone has a "good faith" delete argument I have no problem with it being reopened or another nomination filed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- General note for anybody else who wishes to question this close. See this sockpuppet report. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've relisted the debate to let it run its course - I think a few more opinions are needed to justify any close. I respect and understand your reasoning, but per WP:RELIST I think there's no harm in getting some more input. I took your comments here and elsewhere to suggest you wouldn't object to this, so feel free to ping me with any issues. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- General note for anybody else who wishes to question this close. See this sockpuppet report. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
...For reverting the vandalism on my Talk Page :-). - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
... for the "keep" decision on my IUWM article.--Miguelaaron (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for King Mondo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. 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. Exxolon (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the "keep" decision on Tamara Ecclestone and for adding the COI tag. Thanks also for letting me know. Appreciate it!Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Ron Ritzman's Day!
![]() |
User:Ron Ritzman has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have merged the relevant content from this article into the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em article. I disagree with the result of redirect here - there was more consensus for keeping/merging than redirecting. I also don't think this was suitable for a non-admin closure, which by convention should only be carried out where there is a clear consensus for keeping the article. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- A "redirect" close doesn't preclude a merge and if the content is merged, which you have done, the result would include a redirect anyway. Therefore, I see this close as compatible with what most editors were arguing for in the debate. This is in line with what WP:NAC says on the issue. It was all but obvious that no "delete" buttons were going to be pushed and that is the primary issue in AFDs. ("delete" vs. "keep/do something else") --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pay attention
Please, stop playing the admin. You're clearly not capable for that. In this afd closing, you wrongly claimed that the nomination was withdrawn, when it wasn't (I know because I am the nominator). Still when you reason "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good argument for deletion but (...) he's the only one making a delete argument." you committed the number one mistake on closing deletion discussion, that is consider head-counts instead of arguments. I've reverted your damage. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I screwed up and I'm sorry. I misenterpreted TonyTheTiger's comment as a request for nomination withdraw and if you would have pointed that out to me I would have been more then happy to revert my own close. I have reverted closes at the request of nominators before. The revert with the terse edit summary and the later one of Eric9's close wasn't necessary. In any case it's moot as the AFD was later closed "keep" by an administrator. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have closed it as there were strong objections to keeping, not just a few "drive by" delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: Welcome
Hey, Ron. Sorry that it took me about ... 11 months to respond. But, just wanted to thank ya for the welcome. Glad to be part of wikipedia.
--KieferSuth1985Marx (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Nominated for adminship
Hello, Ron Ritzman. I appreciate your work on Wikipedia so I have nominated you for adminship. @harej 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I really appreciate the nomination but I'll have to decline at this time. With little non-automated real content work I doubt that I would pass. Also, there's more to adminship then closing AFDs and I have no experience in other areas admins are expected to be involved. However, I do appreciate the confidence you have in my work. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Darklore Manor without consensus.
Chzz requested a removal of this long standing article without consensus. Chzz did not notify anyone who had worked on the article, and incorrectly reported that the article was based on self-published sources. All of the sources were 3rd party and reliable sources. The album was used as a score to showing of the 1922 Nosferatu movie aired on Warner TV, it inspired a book, and is the subject of 2 lawsuits for copyright infringement (1. listed here on Google News, and 2. listed here on Fangoria, a reliable publication for horror entertainment news.
The album was also the main theme to Busch Garden's Williamsburg Haunted Wedding stage show in the 2005 and 2006 Howl-o-scream theme park attraction. Chzz is on some sort of witch hunt to remove all Nox Arcana cds. I don't know why, but he started with Blood of Angels and is working his way through the entire discography. Could you please look at the sources and restore the article. I can find other sources in print if you'll allow me a little more time. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not delete the article. (as a non-admin I can't delete articles) I closed it as "redirect" because it had been listed for 14 days with one !vote to redirect and nobody refuting or challenging the nominator's rationale. The article and its history are still there and anybody can restore it. However, doing so without addressing the nominator's concerns will likely lead to other editors restoring the redirect and/or another AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong in the decision or the process, but the article has effectively been recreated, thus I have requested input here;
Please read the added refs, for Fangoria, Google News, and other newspapers in the US. Chzz's claim that this article is unsourced is total bull. And if you agree, then you've not actually checked out the sources. By redirecting and not placing any of the material into the main article you effectively deleted the entire article. It's a sneaky way of getting an article removed. And this removal was complete sabotage. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Darklore Manor
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darklore Manor. 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. Chzz ► 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- No worries about the close - these things happen. You made a judgement and acted upon it, and you did it for the right reasons. The difficulty is that without clear consensus the way was left open for a challenge. WP:RELIST gives some advice. Having looked at the article, a redirect seems the most appropriate outcome, perhaps with a delete and redirect action so the redirect can't simply be undone - however, if any of the content is merged then the history of the Darklore Manor must be preserved as per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. SilkTork *YES! 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please reopen the AfD so that a more thorough consensus can be reached. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I commonly close AFDs that have been open for 14 or more days with little or no participation as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" instead of relisting them over and over again. I was going to do the same here but your nomination was based entirely on WP:V and the one editor who commented demonstrated that the newspaper indeed does exist and that's why I closed it "keep". However, as I said in my closing statement, you are free to renominate the article any time you like if you think the subject's notability needs to be discussed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked to give a second opinion. While this was probably a case of "no consensus" rather than "keep" (a technicality usually based on the strength of the discussion), I must endorse the close. After being open for two weeks, with no further comments, it was fair to close the discussion. It can always be renominated at a later date to see if a better consensus can emerge. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per PeterSymonds, this should have been a no consensus, or better, relisted. A debate with no keep !votes should not be closed as keep (likewise a debate with no deletes should not be closed delete unless it meets a speedy criteria).
Regarding your reasoning that you wished to prevent a renomination, this is not a valid reason for closing keep, and could be considered an abusse of process.It is the closer's job to summarise the current debate, editors should be left free to renominate or take to DRV at their discretion. SpinningSpark 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)- Since the main issue here seems to be why I bolded keep instead of no consensus here is my reasoning. The nominator was basically asking the question "does this exist?". Your answer was "yes it does" and you backed up your answer with sources. Since the nomination had already been open for 14 days with the nominator's concerns addresses (or so I thought), I said "keep". Since I was also leaving the door open for an immediate renomination if someone wished to ask the question "is it notable", I didn't think that would be a problem. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tell you what, I'll add the sources (once I translate what they are saying) that Spinningspark found to the article, and consider renominating it after a time. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per PeterSymonds, this should have been a no consensus, or better, relisted. A debate with no keep !votes should not be closed as keep (likewise a debate with no deletes should not be closed delete unless it meets a speedy criteria).
- I was asked to give a second opinion. While this was probably a case of "no consensus" rather than "keep" (a technicality usually based on the strength of the discussion), I must endorse the close. After being open for two weeks, with no further comments, it was fair to close the discussion. It can always be renominated at a later date to see if a better consensus can emerge. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I unclosed, fixed, and relisted this AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just as good as a "speedy renomination" I suppose. Therefore, I sorted the debate, put the AFD tag back on the article and removed the oldafdfull tag from the talk page. I assume the other close was OK. I would have punched "keep" but one of the "keep" !votes seemed rather week and I didn't want to discourage a renomination.
- Didn't dumbbot use to fix these? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- They were both fine, really, I just felt that relisting was better for Aalto because it hadn't gotten any attention yet.
- I'm not sure what happened to User:DumbBOT. I suppose you'd have to ask its creator/controller. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentine Nonyela
No worries. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being a WikiGnome
Like the others, wanna say thanks for being a good Wikipedian. I appreciate your (more eloquently phrased) comment on notability and hope the article on Avital Ash can stay up.
Best, LeslieanneL (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Queen Wei AfD
Hello! May I ask you to review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Wei as i fail to see how there can be consensus? Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The debate ran for 13 days and was relisted once with nobody but you arguing for deletion. It couldn't have been closed any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with the close.
Simply contesting the close because Ron is not a sysop is, well, inappropriate.The AFD couldn't have been closed any other way. It'd be the same if I nominated an article for deletion, and all the commenting editors thought the article should be kept. Consensus is clear here. I endorse Ron's close. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for the feedback. Now, first of all I think such a closing statement needlessly personalizes the issue. In as far that correctly describes the situation, it still does not imply automatically a consensus to keep an article as it neither addresses raw numbers nor arguments for keeping. Finally, I think this is an indeed an incorrect interpretation of this particular discussion which had a low participation and ended with question marks after the two keep arguments regarding the album and the Chinese Google hits. As it is occasionally important to clarify how we establish consensus or the lack thereof, I've brought this up at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Queen_Wei.
- I have to dispute your re-listing of it. The policy clearly says "However, if at the end of the initial seven day period, an XFD discussion has only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator), and/or if it seems to the closer to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist the discussion.." Neither of these fits, there was 3 people total discussing it and there was plenty of arguments based on policy. But I guess I can wait another 7 days.Gloern (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Though nobody had bolded anything, there were 2 !votes and one comment at the time I relisted it, one delete (the nominator), one keep (you), and one editor not certain (User:OlEnglish). At that time I felt that a few more editors needed to chime in before a call could be made. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Account creator interface request
Request made on 9/23/2009. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Elmwood (band) AfD
Might I ask you to reword your closure of this AfD? There's one (admittedly late) additional !vote to delete. Tim Song (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out as that late delete !vote wasn't there when I reviewed the log. I still feel that the consensus was to keep but considering my closing statement I felt it best to revert my close and and allow an admin to close it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ron, any chance I could get you to review your closure of Kristin Smart as a straight keep (without renaming the article). The article itself seems to presently violate WP:ONEEVENT, but a simple rename per my vote and others would seem to clear that up. I didn't want to just change it myself on the article page without clarification first from the closer. Thanks! Whitespider23 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Moving/renaming is an editorial decision that is really outside the the scope of AFD. That issue can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be WP:BOLD and just do it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- 10-4. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes by changing it. Whitespider23 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
An extra step to userfy
When you userfy a page make sure to "neuter" the categories section with inline comment tags. Miami33139 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For diligently and accurately closing and relisting AfDs nearly every day. Keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
Improper Deletion of article: MMA HEAT
I do not believe the article MMA HEAT should have been deleted. It provided information about a valid news source within the mixed martial arts (MMA) community. Everything within the article could be confirmed on the company's official website, http://www.MMAheat.com, as well as their Facebook fan page, http://www.facebook.com/MMAheat. If this article was not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion than UFC, Sherdog and many other articles should be deleted as well. MMA H.E.A.T. has been making notable contributions to the MMA community since 2007. Most recently, they were the only news organization to be filming Chuck Liddell's UFC 100 Tao Beach Party in Las Vegas on 7/10, Fedor Emelianenko's press conference discussing his agreement with EA Sports on 7/29 and Cris Cyborg's body slam of Tito Ortiz at Cleber Jiu Jitsu at the beginning of last month. Eckinc (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not close this AFD or delete this article, I just relisted the discussion. The article was deleted by User:Cirt because there was a consensus to do so as a result of this AFD discussion. If you wish to challenge this decision then the first thing you need to do is discuss it with Cirt. If you are not satisfied with his response then you can have the deletion of this article reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the process. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures. I will try to follow them and respect them. If you have a moment to explain why the article was deemed irrelevant and what would be required to make it valid, I would greatly appreciate it. I modeled the article after numerous other articles related to the same industry, i.e. Sherdog, Fighting Spirit Magazine, Faust (magazine), etc. MMA H.E.A.T. is a valid news entity whose content is syndicated with IMG, The Fight Network, KDOC - Los Angeles, MMA Jacked, FrankShamrock.com, etc. I would simply like to know what proof is required to validate the article. Thank you. Eckinc (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note, the Freemasonry Wikiproject does not consider being a Grand Master to confer notability, and your merge closure creates a serious problem with respect to precedents. In many jurisdictions is it a one-year appointment in a progressive line, so it's not really pertinent to an encyclopedia entry on the oprganization. much less a full merge of biographical information. A notable Grand Master is someone who was a Grand Master and also notable for some other reason (in England, it is the Duke of Kent, for example, who is notable as a holder of a peerage). I'd like to rectify the problem somehow, because the IP addy that created the Pageau article (the IP is traced to the Masonic Home in Charlton, MA, FYI) now sees it as carte blanche to keep putting the info back into the article. MSJapan (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how else that AFD could have been closed. It was listed for 14 days with every !voter saying "merge". Since a "merge" close is technically a "keep" close, the only thing I can suggest is that the article be renominated for deletion with an explanation of the wikiproject's position. The first nominator's rationale was only the words "Not notable" so there was no way that the !voters or the closer could have known about the guidelines of the Freemasonry Wikiproject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)