User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 8

anthill
Hi Ron, I can't blame you that you didn't want to go through the whole discussion we had with Snowded, but in all this information overflow my request must have been missed: would you be so kind as to copy antenarrative content into my sandbox? Depending on the content of the article I may try to repair it, since I am an organizational scholar familiar with the idea (even though it is not my area of specialty). thanks! Pundit | utter 07:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Userfied to User:Pundit/Antenarrative, (talk page also restored) However, it looks like you have an uphill battle if you want to show that this has been widely noted outside the works of David Boje. If you can do this, as well as show that this is more then original research, then submit the draft to deletion review before moving it back to mainspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Showing academic use of antenarrative outside of Boje's work is much easier than e.g. in the case of Cynefin (see for yourself). Cynefin is just in better shape in terms of adhering to the format. Pundit | utter  14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Peter MacDonald
Hi Ron,

The deletion of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)

has left the following wikipedia pages backlinked to a deleted page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linux/Popular_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux_distributions

BTW: The original page was the same as in Pcmacdon (though the following external references could have been added).

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2750 http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html http://www.mihaiu.name/2005/linux-history/linux-history-6.php

Disclaimer: although this article is about me, I was in no way involved in it's creation (in 2004) nor any of the above...

Regards,

Peter MacDonald

Pcmacdon (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted this article as an expired prod so normally I would have no problem restoring it but I am reluctant to stick an unsourced biography of a living person back into article space. I would much rather restore this to the article incubator. Then once sources are added it can be moved back into article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. Let me know what I need to do... Pcmacdon (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have moved the article to the incubator and informed the linux wikiproject. Also, since you do have a few edits to this article, it still might be a good idea to review WP:AUTO if you haven't already done so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok Ron, I've reviewed WP:AUTO and updated the article. Accordingly, I've removed the stubs for linux and computer specialist. Pcmacdon (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron, I'm afraid I now get to eat crow. Upon reviewing the history, it looks like I was likely the one who created this page. ie. I must have been following a link someone had put in Softlanding Linux System back in 2004. My apologies. Pcmacdon (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article entitled Andrea Elizabeth Michaels
Dear Mr. Ritzman:

I am the contributor to an article entitled "Andrea Elizabeth Michaels" that was deleted this week. I am contacting you because you marked the article for deletion after a deletion review. I have been out of the office and did not know the review was taking place. The reason for the deletion was that Andrea Elizabeth Michaels was not "noteworthy" enough to be included in Wikipedia. In the event production industry, Ms. Michaels is known world-wide. Yes, she self-published her book, but she has been the topic of three other books.

In the deletion review, a comment was made that she couldn't be found in a google search. However, her article was supported with approximately 50 endnotes with references to her in articles, newspapers, books, magazines, Web sites, etc. All of them can be found on google.

It was also commented that I am probably a one-time only contributor who has a conflict of interest. So not true. As a newbie to Wikipedia, it took me so long to learn all the rules and regulations and to successfully get this article completed. Unfortunately, I do other work which pulled me away from contributing to Wikipedia, but I fully intend to contribute more, now that I understand how. This article is not a conflict of interest for me, because I have been writing for trade publications that address the event production industry for 25 years, and my focus is on all the personalities in that industry. Andrea Michaels is just one of the pioneers and outstanding leaders in that industry.

I am at a loss that someone who is so important to a multiple-billion-dollar industry would not be noteworthy on Wikipedia. Please, please reconsider re-instating this article.

I am happy to answer any question that you might have for me about this article. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Cmckibben (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have restored the article and reopened the AFD. You now need to make your case there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Ritzman:

First of all, thank you very much for reinstating the "Andrea Elizabeth Michaels" article that had been deleted.

I wrote my case in the AFD section as you suggested. Could you please advise at to the next step?

Thank you so much.Cmckibben (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Carvelli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvelli

Hello,

The article was deleted in December. It was deleted due to me not knowing the rules and I comprimised the article. It was up for a long time and with respect to the artist can the article be reinstated and put back to before I modified it. I was also under another name at the time. It was Bmcglobal.

Thank you.Rach Beau (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not deleted because of your unfamiliarity with any of our rules. It was deleted because 6 editors agreed that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. I'm afraid the consensus on this one was clear. However, if you disagree or know of some sources that were missed then you are welcome to have the deletion reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a published work I would like to add to make Carvelli noteable. He was published in the DJ Times November Issue, Page 41. Charted as number 6 Most Added Track and #38 above Diddy and Lil Wayne. ThanksRach Beau (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Yukon Gear & Axle
Yukon Gear & Axle was deleted today and I would like to discuss the reasoning. I was working on adding more links/references and "Wikifying" the site. I know others were working on re-writing to be more neutral but before we were able to, the topic/information was deleted. I tried to write the article in such a way to inform interested parties on what Yukon Gear & Axle was; this is not any different than the Dana Corporation article. Please reinstate the article so we can continue to improve upon it. Thank you - Boqle (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there was a clear consensus in the deletion discussion (which you can read by clicking "afd" above) that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria, particularly WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedia article. However, if you still disagree then you are welcome to have the deletion reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway you could restore the site so I can finish updating the content to be more neutral and informative? I do have Patent Info and References from Publications and Periodicals to add and prove the notability of Yukon Gear & Axle. Thanks Boqle (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisting of Articles for deletion/War Division
Hey there. I'm not sure why you relisted the AFD discussion of War Division. If you read the comments, a consensus had already been reached: keep the article under a new name, and more context. I'm not sure if you can "un-relist" a discussion, but I'm just letting you know. Cheers. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there was a weak consensus to rename this article but there needs to be more discussion on the issue of "keep vs delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy
Hi! I was wondering if you could put the contents of the article deleted in this afd into a user subpage, along with its talk page. I know it turned out to all be wrong, but I'm hoping to do some more research into the whole thing. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ userfied to User:Yaksar/Higgby Act. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding clearer discussion of Naman Y. Goyal
Hi Ron, I invite you to review the newspaper articles uploaded by me (Shreesh.shrimali). These newspaper articles give a very good view of Naman Y. Goyal's ability as a upcoming writer - director and his recent accomplishments. I propose Wikipedia must remove the article from its proposed deletion list. Please advise as i am new on wikipedia and contributing articles Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreesh.shrimali (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Alpha Quadrant
As a former prolific non-admin AfD closer, would you provide some input at User talk:Alpha Quadrant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented on the issue in the liberals for Life AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a comment about the other 2 closes you mentioned. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insightful comments. I hope Alpha Quadrant will take to heart the advice. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Victor Sierra (band)
Hello Ron, How are you? I don't understand the harshness you are showing by deleting a page which had been yet reduced by a colleague of yours... He had deleted some important information about us as one of the first "steampunk" band in France. He surely could know better on the other side of the ocean... And now, you come from nowhere and delete the page... Couldn't you warn me before? I don't know what can be done or can't be here anymore. There are Wikipedia pages which have been online for years about people totally unknown and none of interest I personally know. I have had an argument with someone some weeks ago. He insisted on the democratic aspect of Wikipedia. My opinion is definitely the opposite. I feel very sorry to tell you that It reminds me the dark years of the Soviet Union practices. Nevertheless I'm ready to discuss it with you if you're more open to talk than "Republican jacobite" who never answered to my messages.

Sincerely yours, Arkad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkad (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not "come from nowhere" and delete the article. If you click in the link that says "AFD" above, you will see that the article was nominated for deletion and the discussion ran for seven days with a clear consensus to delete. I just reviewed the discussion and carried out the decision. If it were not me it would have been some other admin. However, if you disagree with the result you can have the decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi there- I saw where you deleted Foundation for Enterprise Development. Thanks for that. Could you also please delete SPORTS for Exceptional Athletes, which was a dual nomination in that same AfD? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed the "also nominated" but after review, I don't see that these 2 articles are related aside from both being created by the same editor. Also, only one !voter mentioned the second article. I would recommend a separate AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ron -- would you please give me some insight into why my article on the Foundation for Enterprise Development was deleted? I know that a few people voted "delete" because they felt the organization is non-notable, but the organization is actually having quite an impact across the country. I would very much appreciate it if you would take a close look at what the organization does, it's national impact, and the many supporting references that I included in the article. Thank you. Bizzwriter (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dreamseller
Like a zombie, Dreamseller has returned. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris DeRosa
Hi Ron,

I am a follower of this (as well as many other) musicians. I enjoyed the information on this article (it was informative) and am puzzled as to it's omission. Is it possible for you to revisit it and modify the content as to not violate your standards (if that was the case)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.171.69 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was really no consensus in the discussion. However, I deleted it because it was a biography of a living person without sources. Anybody is free to recreate this article with sources or I can restore it to the incubator but I won't restore it to article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking Videos
No sense dragging this one out. I'll take it under my wing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ron. Appreciations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you check?
In looking at history of the article Ricardo Fort I see that it was tagged for a speedy on March 7 and that the speedy was declined on March 8... resulting in the AFD at Articles for deletion/Ricardo Fort which you relisted on March 15. But in further examination of the article history, it seems an AFD template was never added to the article, so though 9 days later than it should have been, I placed one there and then went and added it to the deletion log. Could you check to make sure I made no errors? Thanks much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris DeRosa
There are several references to support keeping this article some of which are: http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001252/Chris%20DeRosa and http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001352/Chris%20DeRosa

He is listed on many recordings and is also in several national/international music videos: http://wn.com/Melba_Moore_Phil_Perry_Performing_Weakness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.146.247 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are self published blogs. See WP:RS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Susanne Kessler
Hello Ron, I added some quotations to prove the article. Other editors decided to keep the article. Please let me know, what I can do that the article of Susanne Kessler comes out of incubation. THX!!! I don't know which page I should reply to, any help is appreciated. Leda47 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leda47
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bender235#Leda47
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Susanne_Kessler


 * hello ron, as you put my article about Susanne Kessler in the incubator, pls let me know, what will happen to it further. could you pls ask the wikipedia community to prove it?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leda47#March_2011
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bender235#Leda47

Leda47 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Susanne Kessler
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susanne Kessler. 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. Leda47 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Carvelli
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carvelli. 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. lifebaka ++ 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RAFIAMAN - ( Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh )
Hello...I am RAFIAMAN, Why my page is deleted few days ago???? I wanna to make a new Article About "Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh". Cause this very important for World Aviation sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAFIAMAN (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have gone over the entire history of this article and I have to decline for all the reasons given in my AFD closing statement. The subject does not meet our inclusion guidelines for organizations and every version of this article was more of an advertisement then an encyclopedia article with much of the text plagiarized from the organization's website. Also it's likely that you are connected with the organization. In the future it may be possible that the organization might be notable. One of the indications that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor completely unrelated to the subject chooses to write an article about it but I'm sorry, you are not that editor. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Closed AfD discussion for Jersey Circus
Hi there. A few months ago, you closed an AFD discussion on Jersey Circus citing no consensus on whether the coverage was significant, despite it being reiterated that almost all of the coverage claimed was on other non-notable blogs. A few days afterward, the page was redirected to the Parodies section of Family Circus, which I now realize is a much more reasonable solution than the ones I offered. Would it be possible for you to alter your decision, or will I need to take it to Deletion Review? ~jcm 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Filing a DRV was is certainly within your right but I think it would be pointless for a 2 month old "no consensus" close. A second AFD would be a better option. (a DRV would likely result in a "relist" decision anyway) However, first I would try discussing the matter on the article's talk page with those who advocate a standalone article and possibly a third opinion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would go to the article's talk page, but I'm not really sure the blog's popular enough in that I'd find enough people to reach a consensus with. Should I go directly to Dravecky about it, since he's the one who feels most strongly about it, or should I just take it to AFD? ~jcm  19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussing it with Dravecky might be a good idea. Though I have no opinion one way or the other, (if I did I would have !voted not closed) you should consider the possibility that he might be right. As for the AFD, I took a second look and "no consensus" was the correct call. When participants in an AFD start counting the number of sentences or words in a source, it's unlikely that there will be an agreement about what constitutes "significant". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Peter Adediran
Just wanted to thank you for deleting Peter Adediran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.87.197 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you Please Delete Peter Adediran' Photo as well?
Can you please delete the following photo of Peter Adediran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Adediran.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.79.28 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that photo is hosted by commons and I don't have admin privileges there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Jawad Asghar
Good day, iam the free lancer Journalist, i want to contribute in wikipedia to creat effective biographies of living persons, i have read the subject person article in the International Herald Tribune regarding exports.i find him very sourceable. when i created i saw it was deleted before in WP. so i may required permission for further proceed with reliable references.Ithad (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting your confirmation. Ithad (talk) 17:03, 2 April, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but if you click the link that says "afd" above you will see that there was a discussion and there was a unanimous consensus that at this time we shouldn't have an article on this subject. If you disagree with this decision and have sources that the participants in that discussion missed, then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beautiful Darkness (novel)
Technically, since the article has been previously PRODded and contested, the AfD can no longer be treated as an uncontested PROD. I'm not saying you should modify the result for the sake of process, just FYI. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to WP:NPASR no consensus. I would have restored it on request from the creator but after looking at his contribs I suspect he doesn't know how to use talk pages or participate in discussions such as AFD, otherwise he would have defended the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/APECO (disambiguation)
You closed this as speedy delete, one editor blanked the page. This might apply to the disambig page in the main title, but not to the linked nomination of APECO itself. You might want to decide that or revert that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I should have read that more closely. I saw the main article redlinked and thought the deleting admin forgot to close the AFD. I've reverted and relisted the discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Investment Game
That deletion discussion doesn't seem to have been relisted properly. It showed up in Database reports/Old deletion discussions, and Mr.Z-man's tool isn't picking up the original listing for relisting. Logan Talk Contributions 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That will go away the next time mathbot updates the log. If you don't want to wait then kick him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Pablo Gato
Good evening. I've tried to find the discussion threads for this issue, but have been unable to do so. I'm writing to inquire as to why Pablo Gato's page was deleted. I've reviewed the information regarding notability and he definitely qualifies. He's an award-winning (2 Emmys, in addition to other awards and nominations) international correspondent as well as a published author. He resides in the United States and his career has been mostly here in the States. I would appreciate your assistance to understand the decision to remove him. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercideltoro (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click where it says "afd" above you will be taken to the deletion discussion. It was listed for 21 days without any !votes and I normally close such discussions as "no consensus". However the article was an unsourced biography of a living person and that's why I deleted it. I will not restore this article to mainspace but you or anybody else is welcome to write a new version with sources. I can also restore the deleted version to your userspace or the incubator where it can be moved back into article space when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I still don't understand much about "unsourced," etc., but will try to rectify. Please do restore it to my userspace. Thank you. Mercideltoro (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok it's been userfied to User:Mercideltoro/Pablo Gato. As far as sources go, you should review Citing sources as sources are a requirement for articles about living people. Also, the AFD nominator was concerned that you may be "Pablo Gato". If you are him or closely associated with him then you should also review our guidelines on autobiographies and conflict of interest.

April 11 Alpha-BLANK-BLANK AfD challenges
Sorry to bug you, but you're one of the AfD-oriented administrators that I respect a lot. I'd like to request that you consider closing the rest of the Alpha-BLANK-BLANK AfD nominations from April 11, which were made via Twinkle by a user who hacked his way around a ban on use of the tool in order to launch an undifferentiated deletion attack. About half of them have been closed as bad faith nominations, but for some reason the others were allowed to stand, seemingly based on one or two Delete votes. They should all be shut down as improper nominations. Let people pick the 3 or 4 legitimate nominations — which were inadvertently hit in the wanton barrage of shotgun blasts — and renominate those legitimately so that they may be dispassionately considered on their merits. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The few I looked at had more then 1 delete !vote so they may have to go the distance. I'll take another look at them later. However, I have commented in the ANI thread about the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD close on "The Writer"
Ron, your close on Articles for deletion/The Writer (song) stated: "It's been snowing here since day 2." I don't understand how you can say that when every contribution on day two through save one was canvassed, and the one was by the canvasser himself? (Indeed, of even users canvassed, all but one chimed in with identical and outraged keep !votes.) The canvas problem was noted in the discussion; did you take that into account when you closed, and if so, how can you say that it was snowing on day two? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes some might have been canvassed and I took that under consideration but many were not. All of the "keep" !votes, except for the last 3, came in the first 2 days (including !votes from several administrators). IMHO it was obvious at that point that none of the articles were going to be deleted. In any case the issue is moot because I closed it on day 7 and there were no arguments for deletion aside from yours. However, if somebody had closed it after day 2 per WP:SNOW and the close went to DRV, I would endorse the close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Writer (song)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Writer (song). 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. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am participating in the discussion now myself, and I echo what will be appreciation of some information regarding your assessment of the AfD. This was most notably a result of WP:CANVAS no matter how you look at it; Ending-start has since been warned about this.  Notably in his April 7 contributions, he left an identical mesage on 11 talk pages in four minutes; ten of those people showed up to vote in the AfD all voting Keep.  I don't know whether he expected they'd all agree with him or not, or whether he was indeed neutral, but it's a violation.
 * Personally, I gave the opinion that the article is a Keep myself in this discussion (which appears to only be about one, interestingly); it appears to meet WP:NSONGS from what I can tell. And I did see other votes to keep as well; I wonder if they were swayed by the many other keep votes.  However, some insight into the close of the AfD itself would be beneficial and might contribute to the closure of this discussion.  CycloneGU (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding those comments regarding the AfD. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't
The article Yafei really should have been a speedy deletion. There is no chance this will pass an AfD, why would you want to waste more editors' time by relisting? If even the author hasn't come to the discussion to defend, why wouldn't you just delete? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one else comes to make a comment either there is no reason not to relist and actually would generally lean to it not being speedy-able (those generally get a couple pile ons) . Having it on the wiki for a couple more days is doing very little harm and whether or not the author comes to the discussion is meaningless. James of UR (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, a speedy deletion request for that article was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Healingherald.org
Hi Ron,

Perhaps I am new to Wikipedia, but I have a difficult time fully comprehending the deletion of HealingHerald.org... the article you recently deleted. If at the bare minimum can you help me retrieve the page content so that I can understand where I went wrong.

--Soul.guardian (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No you didn't do anything wrong but if you click on the link above that says "afd" you will see that there was a deletion discussion and there was a consensus there that the website in question is not notable (see WP:WEB). Furthermore, there is also a concern that you have a very close connection with this website because you uploaded File:HealingHeraldLogo.png to commons and released it into the public domain, something that you would only have the right to do if you actually created the image yourself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider yourself whacked with a wet trout, and so lets consider this whole unhappy episode both closed and forgotten
+WP:TROUT, following Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much Ron. -- N KOzi  Talk 05:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article on The Nodd
Hello, Ron Ritzman. This is Dug, owner of The Nodd. As I went to make further contribution to The Nodd's Wikipedia article, I have found it to be deleted, apparently by you. After reading the criteria for musicians and ensembles, The Nodd seems to meet at least some of the items presented, not the least of which would be The Nodd placing third in international music competition Emergenza's Philadelphia round, and winning Best Vocalist award in 2004, resulting in a brief national tour including visits to Chicago, St. Louis, Washington D.C., New York, Memphis, and Philadelphia.

I am curious why you have targeted The Nodd's page for deletion, which was not originally submitted by the band, but rather by an outside party. If there is something I could provide to you to persuade you to reconsider, please let me know. I have heard several praises of The Nodd's Wikipedia entry, and it being a valuable resource. True, perhaps The Nodd is not the most notable music group in the world, but I believe the criteria is met to keep the page up.

Respectfully,

Dug The Nodd http://www.thenodd.com

REFERNCES:

http://www.emergenza.net/bands.asp?band=t&offset=2760

http://marplenewtown.patch.com/articles/year-in-review-shows-that-ended-2010-sweet-and-strong-just-like-their-coffee
 * I did not "target" this article for deletion. If you click the link above that says "afd2" you will see a discussion where it was decided that the article should be deleted. I just closed the discussion. If it weren't me then it would have been another admin as it could not have been closed any other way. If you think that the article meets our inclusion criteria then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for undeletion
Hi. I wanted to request undeletion of MyBB because I think there's no consensus here. Prior to that, I'd like to know why you felt there is consensus. Please note that I think you're understanding of the weakness of "keep" votes can be different from what "consensus" is. Thanks, huji— TALK 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the numbers the !votes were split, 3 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps. In cases such as this the admin can weigh the strengths of the arguments and I felt that the "delete" !voters made the stronger arguments. Add to that the fact that even the "keep" !voters concede that there isn't the kind of coverage required by WP:GNG, just a whole lot of "incidental" hits in blogs and forums and such. There's no doubt that the software is popular but unfortunately that's not enough. If you still disagree with the close then you are welcome to take it to deletion review. (and I'm quite surprised it isn't there already because I knew this would be a contentious close). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm concerned that by closing a similar AfD with a different conclusion (just because people "say" the subject is notable, but nobody actually shows any references), we might be applying double standards in Wikipedia. In other words, since there are some supporters for vBulletin in Wikipedia but none for MyBB, one has it's article retained and one has it's article lost. huji— TALK 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't close that one. The arguments are similar but not quite the same. The "keep" !voters were saying that reliable sources exist but weren't providing any examples which is a common "inclusionist" tactic. It's frustrating (especially for me because I consider myself a "weak inclusionist") but unless enough other !voters call them on it, there's no other way it can be closed because while AFD is not a straight "vote", the keep/delete count is not meaningless. (see WP:SUPERVOTE). In the MyBB AFD, the "keep" !voters themselves were conceding that they were having trouble finding supersources. This is ironic because if those advocating "keep" are straightforward and admit that the "emperor has no clothes" the article gets deleted but if they make vague waves to google news hits but don't provide any examples of supersources the article is kept. It's a problem but I can evaluate only 1 AFD at a time and call them as I see them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Armenian moving
The result was delete; but could you also delete Armenian roots, if you feel the consensus indicates it. I'm an involved admin, (and nominated one of them for deletion), so I could not delete it even if the consensus is clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaron James (pornographic actor) undeletion
I'm asking you to take the admittedly unusual action of rejecting/redoing this undeletion. The editor asking for undeletion is a new account, with no other edit history, but the action and the posted comment show Wikipedia experience. The article was originally created by a Benjeboi sock; Benjeboi has since been banned for his extensive, disruptive sockpuppetry (but hasn't stopped); and in all likelihood the REFUND request was the action of a banned user, therefore best disregarded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does raise my eyebrows when an editor with few edits makes a REFUND request or removes a PROD tag. Ideally, I would prefer that editors who challenge PRODs be WP:HERE compliant but barring any strong evidence that the editor making the request is someone's sock I have to err on the side of AGF. PROD needs to remain an "easy go easy come" process and as long as there are no major verifiability or BLP issues with the article, they should be restored upon any good faith request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Furious-M (rapper)
Hello Ron, in conection with the deletition of the page Furious-M (rapper) I think it shouldnt have been deleted. I may be able to provide all the resources needed to back it up. You may google him for all the resources needed. I will take from where the last editor left off and try fix the page or i will create a new one. Waiting for your responses first —Preceding unsigned comment added by The rulez (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have sources that satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guidelines then you are welcome to file a deletion review and present those sources there]]. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

NOVA Roller Derby Re-instatement
Thank you so much! I would love to know what I can do to keep this from being re-deleted. When I look at other pages (Steel City Derby Demons for example) the content is similar - what can I do to make it so that the page does not continue to be targeted? I appreciate any feedback you can provide.Imperialgrrl (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given some advice, mainly on notability and WAX. JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Soxman Undeletion
I do not check Wikipedia entries frequently but noticed my submission on Soxman was deleted, with some voting members being less then polite referring to him as a "buffoon.” Is this cordial?

I’m guilty of several links being broken or old, as I have not maintained the page but completely disagree with the reason for deletion given that similar people of less accomplishment Andy The Clown, Ronnie Woo Woo, have their pages intact.

I have not saved the source code to this page, and do not know if it can be undeleted, but if so, I would request that this be done and I will fix the links and establish notoriety accordingly.

Soxman, is actually also a columnist for the Chicago Tribune’s Red Eye paper, covering the Chicago White Sox and co-writing a weekly column called pitch fest. As the article also referred to him as a journalist, there was a reason. He has also frequently been a guest on local television and radio.

Here are a couple links to serve as proof. I can produce more.

Soxman on Chicago’s WCIU’s Morning Show.

Soxman on MLB.com You have to click 4 or 5 video in.

Soxman’s Articles for the Red Eye

Please let me know how this can be corrected and what my options are for restoration.

SBSportsbank (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but if you click the link above that says "afd" you will see that there was a discussion and the consensus was that the subject isn't notable at this time. If you disagree and you think that the sources you have establish notability then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mike Bloom (musician)
FYI: - WP:REFUND. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted/Itaril
Please tell me your hurry in deleting my page Itaril. I did, only the first time, copy information from various sites but I did list the sites under reference. The second time, you had no right, or reason, to delete it. I am familiar with wikipedia's policies and I know vary well that you had no reason.Zacharykirk 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)zacharykitk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs)
 * There was no hurry. There was an afd discussion that ran for 7 days with everybody but you saying "delete" so there was no other way it could have been closed. If it weren't me it would have been some other admin. Therefore, the only thing I can tell you is what catfish jim did. You can challenge it at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please 'undelete' Mike Bloom (Musician) page
Hello Ron,

I hope I am following the guidelines to contacting you regarding undeleting 'Mike Bloom's (Musician)' page. I just read a response as to why the page was taken down initially. I can provide references and articles to verify the information on his page as true and factual. Please let me know how I can help to provide the references and hopefully restore the page.

I also wanted to clear up, that Mike does not use Wikipedia for self promotion of any kind (as the previous administrator had misconstrued). As I'm sure you know, many people use Wikipedia as a foundation for research and a starting reference point. Because of that, it's important that his page is available. Not for self promotion. I know you didn't write the initial response to why the page was deleted, I just wanted you to be sure that Mike's page is available for the right reasons.

Thank you for your time. And please let me know how I can provide you with the information you need to undelete Mike Bloom's page.

Kindly, 5/11/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bljoe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page has actually not been deleted and the the actual AFD close (which you can read by clicking "afd" above) was "no consensus". It has been redirected but that can be undone by any editor, including yourself, by reverting to the last edit. However, I redirected it because it was an unsourced biography of a living person so I would strongly advise against it unless you intend to source the article or else another AFD is likely. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kurukshetra War - day X
Hi. I noticed these four AfDs while cleaning my watchlist [1] [2] [3] [4], it seems they are still open after a month. I'm not sure what should be done here, so I thought of letting you know since you're an admin. Best regards - frankieMR (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator forgot to transclude these to the proper log pages. Dumbot fixed them but that means they have to run another 7 days starting today. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but DumbBOT did that on April 12. Is there an specific reason why it is from today? (just wondering, this bit my curiosity) - frankieMR (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the bot didn't notice it until today. It's usually more prompt at fixing these. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of MojoMojo
Dear Mr. Ritzman,

I am contacting you before requesting a deletion review for the article on the open-source wiki engine MojoMojo, which has been deleted again, two years after a previous deletion was overturned thanks to new references being added (a book in print). This time the deletion process was very cursory, with only three editors. By contrast, the first AfD had much more involvement, and one of its fruits was a proposal (albeit denied) of revising the notability requirements for free open-source software.

The nominator's claim this time was:

the user decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the topic suddenly was notable enough to re-introduce to normal article space. Some sources have been added since, but they seem to be either all blogs, trivial mentions or other non-reliable sources.

Actually, the reintroduction in the article space was only made after a most reliable source was added - a section in a book on Catalyst, the web application framework that powers MojoMojo. The book is accepted as a reference in the article on Catalyst. Here is a picture of the first page about MojoMojo in the book.

Kindly review your deletion decision, and please restore the MojoMojo article, should you see it fit. -- Dandv (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike Bloom (musician)
Hi Ron..So i reverted Mike Bloom (Musician) page, thank you for sending me the direct link, I really appreciate it. I also added many references and links to verify and authenticate his page. I think i formatted the links and references correctly, but it is definitely not my strong point. I apologize if I'm butchering the process. Please let me know if i need to do/add any other references to satisfy the sourcing requirements, and make the warning banner on the site disappear. Thank yous o much for your help...and patience. Kindly, Bljoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bljoe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Shaikh
Hi. A warning - see WP:REFUND. I have pointed this guy to you because you offered in the last of these four AfDs to userfy for better sources. His article is no better then the previous ones, and he will certainly have to go to DRV before anyone will let it back in the mainspace, but it would not succeed as it is and maybe he should have a chance to improve it first. Another possibility, suggested in this ANI thread, is to redirect to the International Islamic Propagation Center article, but actually I have doubts whether that would withstand a notability challenge. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Both versions redirected and protected. If International Islamic Propagation Center is sent to AFD and deleted then so will the redirects. If the creator comes to me about the article then I'll deal with it then. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good solution, thanks. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number
Hey, Ron. In your closure of Erdős–Bacon number you said that there were no arguments for deletion, except from nominator. In fact, I argued for deletion. Not that I have any quarrel with your decision made on the basis of the debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Revised and giving myself a...

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to punish yourself so severely: the offense was only minor. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC).