User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 3

About: Tony Lewis AfD non-admin closure
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)

Center for Range Voting
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)

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)

Articles for deletion/Stacks on Deck Entertainment
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 Merge and delete.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed; apologies for any trouble - I thought that it was a valid judgement too. No hard feelings whatsoever; I listed at DRV under advisement as the best way to achieve closure on the issue. Thanks for your cooperation (both)  Chzz  ►  09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Solosol
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, Peter Symonds  ( 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.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  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)

Articles for deletion/Aalto Entrepreneurship Society
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 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 Deletion_review.

David Mason deletion page

 * 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)
 * Oh I understand why you did it. The reasoning was quite clear, I just think that it 'technically' goes against the letter of the policy while still being in the spirit.Gloern (talk) 19:39, 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)
 * Thanks - I was going to agree with you on the proper close, but after looking at the debate more closely, I decided to add another delete !vote instead. :) Tim Song (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kristin Smart
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)

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)

Roger W. Pageau AfD closure
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)

Deletion of the article Anil Shastri Sharad
Aarsh5594 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The article Anil Shastri Sharad that has been listed for deletion is authentic. The information that has been given is genuine and from a reliable source.There is no copyright violation and thus it should not be deleted.Arsh
 * I did not nominate that article for deletion or !vote in the discussion, I just relisted it because there was not enough participation to close it after 7 days. If you object to that article being deleted then you need to make your case in the discussion itself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure
Thanks for closing this AfD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_of_Anarchist_Federations I did not know the next step to take once an apparant consensus is reached. --0nonanon0 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Today's relistings
Just so you know, I'm not going to be online today at 0:00 UTC (despite what IRC says), so the log is all yours :) Tim Song (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Adventures of the Imagination of Periphery Stowe
Hi. I'm not really objecting unless somebody unredirects, but per WP:DPR, you should not have closed this. Non-admins may not close discussions that are close or ambiguous, and there was not only one person "!voting", as you put it - the nomination counts as well. Thanks for taking this into consideration next time.  Sandstein  06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the redirect is undone, it can be nominated again per WP:NPASR. (as far as I am concerned, any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or nor the closer says so). As to why I am making such closes as a non-administrator, I have given my rationale in this thread at WT:DELPRO. I'll quote part of my rationale...


 * I've been closing some AFDs after 14 days and one relist as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" (minor IAR with regards to WP:NAC) if they've been sorted and/or have at least one comment, and relisting twice only if there is no participation aside from the nominator and the debate hasn't been sorted.


 * That's basically what I did here. If the only !voter (aside from the nom) makes a merge/redirect suggestion and it kind of makes sense, I'll follow his lead and close that way but still say it's a "no consensus" close because there really isn't a consensus to do anything.


 * One thing I have changed sense then is that I will no longer close BLPs that way and I have advised Tim Song, the other main NACer not to do so either. I will also not close like this if anybody else aside from the nom is arguing for deletion.


 * On a further note, I don't view such closes as "close or controversial". They're unanimous in the sense that nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. What I am basically doing is allowing the nominator (or someone else) to decide if he/she wants to discuss the issue for a third week (or forth, fifth etc.) instead of relisting it over and over again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What's up?
Haven't seen you around in a while. Taking a break? Tim Song (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruthven College
The discussion was not only about merging the content but also deleting or incubating the article left behind. In such a circumstance a non-admin keep is not really appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is merged, then a redirect will still have to be left behind. See WP:MAD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just looking back through my history. I don't think you took the wrong decision here at all, I just wanted to highlight that the procedure would suggest that a non-admin closure was not appropriate for this AfD. Your closure was only challenged by me here (and so not officialy) and your closure was backed up by an admin anyway so I have no outstanding issues. The article has been merged anyway. I suppose I was just trying to warn you not to close AfDs unless clearly non-admin was appropriate. However, that said why on earth are you not an admin? Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Il Parco Dei Sogni
I disagree with your non-admin closing of Articles for deletion/Il Parco Dei Sogni. As there was no comment at all, relisting it again would have been the appropriate course. Will you consider undoing your closure and relisting again please. Thank you, -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ As for my rationale for making such closes as a non-admin, see this thread above. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've seen some AfD's relisted 2-3 times if no comments are made. :) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response
I've seen admins close AfDs with no votes as delete. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Liam Tulley (actor)
Nice catch... see the AFD. You unearthed a puppet and his hoaxes before he got too much of a head start. The IP has left a small mess of edits that were created to support the Tulley article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also found a previous attempt to do this back in Jan of 2009. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another from the original refund request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay... just spent some time and think I fixed the last of the "Liam Tully" vandalism in the various related articles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up after that second IP as well. And found another imaginary character... a "Brando Dingle"... and another made-up actor as well... one "Jack Bodimead".  Then found the IP mis-assigned actor Mark Silcock to an imaginary/non-existant role.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Proposed deletion of Kaye Capron
I have gotten the reference on the article. Thanks for reading my response.-- Guy546 ( Talk ) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Non admin closures.
Per NAC, non-admin closures are not acceptable when there is any "contentious debate among participants." Perhaps you are unaware about the level of debating regarding pornstar notability, but it is not acceptable for you to NAC an article at this level of dispute. Please unclose this closure, and allow an admin to close it with a full rationale. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your new closure is fine. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Like I normally do with these, I'll ask an independent administrator to review the close. However, I suspect that since you are also not mentioning this close I made last night, it's the "copy-and-paste" comment that's bothering you. I've edited that out and I'm sorry I made it. (I notice that a lot of the "keeps" in these are are also "copy and paste")


 * Those are the only 2 I'm planning on closing because those are the only 2 where there is a weak consensus that the subjects pass WP:GNG. The rest are only arguments about the playmate=notable issue with some "keep" !voters even quoting WP:HOTTIE.

AFD is not a vote, did you have a look at the article Sandra_Nilsson to see what part of WP:GNG it passes? Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you to stop closing any of the AFD playmate BLP articles as basically that are all a bit disputed and have policy issues, it is going to be better if they are closed by Administrators. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'd argue that there are times to gracefuly lose (you know I'm on your side here). This appears to be one. RR was correct that I was mainly pissed that he decided to disregard my argument as copypasta (it might have been a copy-paste, but it was selectively pasted - I skipped one nominated article that I considered GNG notable, and I would have skipped this article if the extra coverage was in the AFD when I !voted). I probably should have been more open about that, honestly. I consider RR mostly blameless, appreciate that he divined my motive even though I was doing my damndest to MASTADON at him, and then that reverted his closures at your request, and consequently have taken his future RFA (DON'T DENY IT) off of my watchlist, and at some point will probably nominate him myself given what appears to be a very mature and concilatory approach here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that RR seemed to address only the ones that looked like pretty clear keeps (at least to me). Some of these playmate AfDs are over 7 days old, and we know this means avoidance of a difficult close, so someone has to step up either way.--Milowent (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment is not any reflection on Ron's actions. I have only the intention to address any of the closures that imo are not in line with guidelines and policy. With this article I dispute that she passes GNG and I am going to raise the issue with who ever closes it. Some of the articles are being improved and more notability asserted and that is good. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I reopened both the playmate AFDs I closed. Yes I did think that of all the playmate AFDs on yesterday's log, those two were clear keeps and I made sure that in my closing statement, I mentioned that the closes were based on a (weak) consensus that the article's passed WP:GNG and they shouldn't be taken as supporting a precedent that being a playmate means automatic notability. If I personally had an opinion on the matter I would have !voted not closed. (I later did a google news search for Sandra_Nilsson and came up with some hits in Swedish so I don't know if the coverage is significant or not)

As far as the rest of them go, they also appear as "keeps" but only if you are counting snouts. Some !voters were even using WP:HOTTIE as their rationale. (why that essay isn't marked as humor I don't know). In any case I think I'll stay away from the rest of these landmine AFDs.

As far as hypocrite's comment about adminship, I actually declined a nomination last year as I felt that there's a lot more to it then closing AFDs. I have very little "non automated" mainspace work and no experience in other admin areas. However, I might consider it in the future because it would help in areas like WP:DRV and WP:REFUND where having access to deleted articles is useful. However, at the moment I'm not close to ready. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Independents
I have re nominated this article after I noticed that you NAC'd it. I just wanted to give you the heads up. Normally I would not renominate this but I feel the no consensus was more of a lack of discussion. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 18:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. "Leave to speedy renominate" means one is free to renom 2 seconds after the close if he so wishes (see WP:NPASR). As far as I'm concerned, any AFD closed due to lack of participation can be instantly renominated whether or not the closer says so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson House
Thank you for your note. I wasn't aware that articles had been written, or I would have withdrawn the AfD. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Midmac
That was a rather weird closure rationale. You could have relisted it for another week instead. Pcap ping  23:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I normally don't relist non-BLP articles a second time but in this case I have reverted my close and relisted it. For any others I have closed this way you are free to renominate them any time you wish. See WP:NPASR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate
Since it was on the UCSD campus for years and is still pretty much part of the school, isn't it considered notable? PÆonU (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They were featured in an international magazine, Concrete Wave Magazine volume 6 issue 4, on page 31. At the time they were known as "Muir Surf and Skate". Notable enough? PÆonU (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded in the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I missed your note on my talking page (re. AfD closes). Thanks for fixing the formatting and thanks for the advice. I don't plan to close many AfDs- I probably won't close one 'til next time someone decides it's a good idea to AfD the top item on ITN! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate
Since it's pretty obvious that the Guardian, an international magazine, campus affiliation, and cultural influence isn't "notable enough," is there anything at all that I can say which will convince the moderator reading the debate, or is the deletionist interpretation the new standard here? Should I just give up here? PÆonU (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I Cant Feel My Face
On the AfD for I Can't Feel My Face there was a concensious to merge to both Lil Wayne and Juelz Santana. STAT- Verse 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing the mentioning the subject in both articles but it can only be redirected to 1 of them. Since it wasn't clear which article it would be, I felt that the only difference between "no consensus" and "merge" was a big purple tag on the page. If you're worried about someone resisting the merge, then what I said in my closing statement would have the same "authority" as an official "merge" close. (which is not much). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised...
...to find you aren't an admin. I see your name on an awful lot of relists. Guess it just surprised me a bit to find a non-admin would want to put in that kind of time. AfD's definitely better for the attention.

I know you've heard this before, but you should really consider filing an RfA. I wouldn't let lack of mainspace edits deter you -- you've clearly done a lot of work for the project, even if it's not the "glamorous" stuff. Of course, if you don't feel ready, that's your call... and our loss. Shimeru (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past I dismissed the idea because of my lack of non-huggle non-twinkle mainspace edits. I didn't think it right that someone who never wrote an article have a button that can make someone elses hard work go away and what I'm doing in AFD doesn't really require the bit. There are plenty of admins to close "delete". Also, there's RFA :)


 * I'll give it some thought though because I'd also like to help out at WP:REFUND which does require the bit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you might as well go for it. What is there to lose?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, FWIW. Tim Song (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your consistent involvement in AfD work indicates that you'd be a fine mop wielder - and your repeated reluctance to apply to be an admin is also a good reason to make you one! Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI you would have my support at RfA... -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Stockton College Student Center
Heh... after two weeks of sitting in the AFD, I re-read Stockton College Student Center, felt suspicious about some text, checked it against Google, and found practically the entire article. So I had to speedy it after all that. Such is how it happens sometimes... SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Had that happen to me at this AFD --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)
Hi, Ron Ritzman. Because you initiated Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Samek
Re. your second relist at Articles for deletion/Tom Samek, I see what you mean - unreferenced BLP. I've now referenced all the material in the article, and wonder if you could look again at the AFD.  Ty  09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job sourcing the article. However, since it is a BLP, another view or 2 would be helpful before it's closed. (unless a neutral admin wants to close it now) I've added a "keep" !vote.


 * If this were an article on a Pokemon I probably would have closed it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. Thanks. I've added more refs to the article. It also led on to creating this one.  Ty 

redirect
Hi Ron, a bit of advice, I know you use the AFD closure script and I have closed this Articles_for_deletion/Richard_William_Aguirre_(2nd_nomination) as a redirect, really I would have liked to delete the article first and then create the redirect, but now I have the redirect and the talkpage still in existance with the AFD link on it. I was going to clear the talkpage and nominate it for housekeeping deletion to get rid of it... seems a bit messy to me because I couldn't delete the article first. What do you think is it better in such a situation not to close as a redirect and leave it to an administrator.? ... looking at it I think it is OK as is but your opinion would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If an AFD is closed as a redirect and the history is still intact, it's best if the talk page remains intact with a link to the AFD discussion. The way you have it is right. However, in the case of this AFD, it probably would have been best to allow an admin to close it considering the article's a BLP and the discussion has 2 flat out delete !votes. An admin can delete the history before redirecting. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ron, I will likely ask an Admin to change that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
Is not a joke. -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) -Actually, your userpage is quite offensive. Please tone it down. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think my userpage is offensive?
 * You have a message in Message-orange, saying "You have new messages about an EPIC FAIL (last change)." (Didn 't you know it is there?). Me an epic fail? Then these bars are like "I have a gun you know", "I'm a Patroller". etc. What if I wanted to open a talk with you? You start joking & pointing guns? That's what I mean. -DePiep (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe my userpage is offensive. The orange box is a parody and not a real "you have new messages" box. The userboxes in question, save for the "who shot JR" one are used on countless other userpages. If you really believe my userpage is offensive, then you are welcome to ask for a third opinion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Anat Kamm
Shouldn't the AfD be closed as keep, but rename? That would accurately represent the consensus. Just a thought. Basket of Puppies 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving and renaming articles is beyond the scope of AFD. A close to that effect would have little authority. Furthermore, there was no real consensus for a target. Since the issue was already being discussed on the talk page, keep was the only reasonable close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album)
Hi, I noticed that you closed this AfD as withdrawn, even though I remembered having recommended that it be deleted since its track list has yet to be confirmed—as is pretty much necessary for an album to have its own article (WP:NALBUMS). I went into the history, and removed not only my words from the deletion discussion but also those of Lionelt a couple days ago. Cliff smith  talk  15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reopened, comments restored, and reclosed. Tim Song (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that that happened. I actually closed it "keep" but I normally use that comment when the nominator withdraws but the debate still runs 7 days (or close to it) with enough participation for a "keep" close. I definitely would not have said that if I had known that someones !vote had been removed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I knew that you wouldn't have closed it if you knew the !votes had been removed.  Cliff smith   talk  23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting two of your AfD relists
Hi,

Just a courtesy note to inform you that I took the liberty to close two AfDs that you relisted yesterday: Articles for deletion/A S Murty and Articles for deletion/Vineet Nayyar. They came past their due date on WP:CP today, and as both were relisted twice for lack of a forming consensus, I have decided to delete rather than relist these copyvio issues for another week. The main reason was that the original uploader, who claimed to have permission, has failed to produce evidence of such within the given timeframe despite being given clear and personalized directions.

Regards, MLauba (Talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. However, you might want to take a look at the contributions of the editor who is the primary contributor for these articles. Who is the "we" mentioned in this dif? Looks like some serious WP:COI issues here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I saw that. As Moonriddengirl has already engaged on that specific conversation, I trust it's being covered (though I'll keep an eye on this persons contribs for a while). Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 07:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Greater New York

 * Thanks, although I don't want to hold up the closing of the discussion. I totally agree with you that it's a snow keep, and I'm glad to see that several persons are working on the article.  At this point, it's just other editors and I arguing over the use of the phrase "Wikipedia is not for cleanup", rather than over the article itself.  Mandsford 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Tim Song punched it keep a little later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
Hi, you just closed Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (2nd nomination) as (non-admin closure) with the following rational. "Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator...'

I was the nominator and my argument is that it fails WP:GNG. Anything wrong with my argument? IQinn (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with the argument. It's just that you were the only one making it. After 20 days with only 2 !votes, both "keep" (Geo Swan didn't bold "keep" but it was a "keep" argument) it was extremely unlikely that an admin could have deleted it. I was going to close it "keep" but considering that one of the keep !votes was an WP:ITSUSEFULL argument, I closed it "no consensus" instead. This means that you can turn right around and renominate it if you wish per WP:NPASR, something you couldn't do if it were closed "keep". I revised my closing rationale to reflect this but any AFD discussion closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be immediately renominated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank's for the explanation. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD close: thanks!
For that - I is newbie admin (who is wondering how long that excuse is going to work...!) TFOWR 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That common mistake is made by experienced admins as well. The goes above everything, including the header. If you are going to be closing a lot of AFDs, this script will come in handy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! TFOWR 11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About A Change of Seasons (song) deletion
Ron Ritzman, I've read "Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs" and I do not think the article fails that policy. Furthermore, the discussion for deleting the article has got only 1 vote and, obviously, it would take the voter decision. If something had to be changed, I think merging would be more appropriate than deleting. I strongly disagree with the deletion. I am new at Wikipedia's community, and I don't know how to proceed in this case. How could I suggest to article to be undeleted? Thank you. CronoF (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind my answering. ^_^ The place to appeal the AfD decision would be WP:DRV, "Deletion review."  Instructions are on that page, and I'd be glad to help you set one up if you find them confusing.  (The deletion processes can take a while to get used to.)  Shi  meru  19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually nothing to appeal. I actually closed the AFD as "no consensus" but combined it with an editorial decision to redirect. CronoF is free to revert the redirect and restore the article any time he wants to. However, anybody is also free to renominate it for deletion anytime they want to per WP:NPASR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering, Ron Ritzman. You really helped me! CronoF (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:REFUND
Hi, I saw your post appear then disappear on my talk page ;-) I'm pretty new to this admin malarkey, so I'm happy to self-revert and acknowledge that my policy knowledge is limited in some (many...) areas. So... what would you consider is the best way to proceed? TFOWR 12:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my new reply there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Non admin closing
I've performed many non-admin closures throughout the years I've been here, and I must say that I disapprove of some of your recent closures. In my opinion, a merge, especially when only two !votes have been cast, should only be decided by an admin. Creating categories or sub-pages for articles that you do not believe warrant a full page is not the right way to go. Non admin closures only go when there is no doubt about the outcome, and that cannot be obtained by two opposing !votes. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular AFD you objected to? The only AFD I closed in the past month where you either were the nominator or !voted "delete" was this one which I closed as a unanimous "keep".


 * As far as closing as "merge", I normally wouldn't close that way with only 2 !votes unless those were the only 2 !votes after a relist. Also, a "merge" close is not practically enforceable if there are editors who are dead set on keeping it as a standalone article. It's basically a "keep" close with a big purple tag on the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note on Kickin' 9. I have mixed feelings about Cirt's closing AFDs with only one !vote as "delete" as one !vote is hardly a consensus but to his credit he usually restores those and relists their AFDs on request. As far as how the first AFD was closed, it was well within the guidelines. See WP:NPASR. That's how such AFDs are suppose to be closed. (unless one opts for a second relist but I normally only do that for BLPs).

Further note. I just relisted a shitload of other AFDs for articles in the "kickin" series. I personally have no opinion on those articles but if you wish them to be kept then you need to participate in those AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Kickin' series, I honestly don't think any of those should be deleted. They are like the Now Music series of the U.S., but just in a different country. No one has went out and found sources for them though. I can honestly bet that those compilation albums are advertised via television in other countries. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Federal Signal 2001 deletion
No one will do anything about the article. I tried fixing it a while back, but people just tore it all apart. It is a niche subject only a disproportionate amount of people on here really care about. And it's all been paved over with useless drivel, as well. Personally, it should just be deleted. And check over any article written by Evan7878/Evan7788, I find most of the articles he started are either woefully inaccurate, or just useless. --JustInn014 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Libra Scale (2nd nomination)‎
Im wondering why you closed this AfD because I don't think it is a non admin closure. STAT -Verse 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there were no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Perfectly valid NAC. If it's the redirect you object to then go ahead and revert it if you wish, as I stated in my closing statement the consensus was to keep. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)