![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
You seem to be doing lots of AfD closing, so could you get this one here please? I'm the nominator, but my concerns have been sufficiently alleviated that I am satisfied to withdraw it. Thanks! Risker ( talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorrry abt removing the tag - I'd been keeping a watch on the date for the AfD and simply assumed that time was up. PiCo ( talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That was some good rationale. Nice work. Cptnono ( talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I decided to chime in with my own two cents on how the entries for terrorist attacks in this region are evaluated with some brief ramblings on my user page, User:Mtiffany71, and I'd like your feedback. Thanks. Mtiffany71 ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm afraid that I don't agree with your "no consensus" decision in this debate. Rather than taking it to Deletion Review now, I thought I'd query it first. Ignoring the "SPA activity", 6 regular editors recommended to delete, and 3 recommended to keep. To post this as a no consensus rather than keep the debate open, or even close as a delete (one keep was the creator of the article, too), seems a little bit of an inclusionist decision. I voted in the AFD, so I can't as an administrator reverse your decision as a conflict of interest, so perhaps you could review it yourself. Esteffect ( talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you deleted The Howard Stern Show games and bits just now, it left behind four redirects pointing to it. I have G8-ed them all, and I am not writing to complain, but to recommend to you an excellent script, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD which makes closing AfDs very easy. Among its facilities are a box you can tick to say "delete redirects" which it then does automatically. There is a companion script User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD which does what it says, so that you can scroll up the list of AfDs only seeing those that are still open. That one is not so foolproof - if you go away from the AfD log it loses its place and also turns itself off so that you have to turn it on again, but it's still useful. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Talk about a "save" from the very brink of the abyss! I hate fighting through translating Spanish and Portugese... but damned if I was going to let this one die because no one else did it. That my work caused a 100% turnaround in opinion was quite gratifying. Thanks for the close. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I see that you relisted this, but I think that it can be speedily kept as the nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm moving it to the incubator." Not true, I added a source (arguably) establishing notability, and noted this in my comment at the AfD page. GregorB ( talk) 00:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi RonR,
There is still an {{AfDM}} template + other bits and pieces at
Imran Channa, tho the discussion was closed as keep yesterday. Can a non-admin remove these, and if so, what bits? I'm especially leery of going anywhere near the <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Imran Channa visual artist|date=26 September 2010|result='''keep'''}} --> bit!
Thank you!--
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the re-listing... but it kinda saddens me that no one else has commented since then. In looking at the article itself, the only real flaw I perceive is perhaps in its correctable style, as it is far better sourced than many BLPs. And while the nominator had real concerns about a series of articles created by SPAs... I myself pretty much figure that once an article is ours, its OURS... and need be evaluated on its merits rather than on its author's motivations. When I get home from work tonight, I'll go through it and give it a cleaning up... and post it on a few other delsorts... and then may even ask the nominator to reconsider. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
I, -- Cirt ( talk), award The Admin's Barnstar to Ron Ritzman, for continued admin efforts in the area of closure of deletion discussions. These contributions to the project benefit the community and are valued by the project. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
Ron,
I would be grateful for a bit more explanation for your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_bookstore,_Gaza, the article is now at The_Teacher's_Bookshop. I don't feel like the points I made were rebuffed so would like to know how you reached your conclusion. I'm sorry to bring this to you late, but I've been away. Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am considering closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang promptly. Its 7-day period has just expired, an hour or two ago, by my calculations. I have asked Chaser whether xe has any objections. Uncle G ( talk) 11:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
collapsed text of references for readibility |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
G'day there - I was going to close it the same way but it's not a BLP! -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series, which you closed, is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 7#Untitled 2011 AMC television series. Cunard ( talk) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
G'Day. Per Wikipedia Policy, an article up for deletion should definitely have more than 6 hours of review. There was no reason for a speedy close. You stated: "The result was speedy close. Obvious violation of WP:POINT."
Who violated it?
Please state the "obvious" proof of this violation that puts the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?
The article
Quickly clearly has a lack of content, little verifiability with only 1 reference, and almost no notability per
Notability_in_Wikipedia. Of course, an admin such as yourself should already realize this. I strongly suggest that you approach each deletion review with a clean slate and remain objective per wikipedia policies. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FrosteaTheSnowman (
talk •
contribs)
Well for one, an admin should not assume what one would have likely or would not have likely done, it is unprofessional to approach a, what should be objective, situation with a pre-concieved notion. The reason on the AfD was completely viable and on point per Wikipedia's policy for deletion.
May be possible? Do you not see the lack of
Wikipedia:Notability or
Wikipedia:Verifiability in that article? As one who serves for Wikipedia's greater good - Why don't you nominate it, instead of waiting for someone else?
Best Regards
FrosteaTheSnowman (
talk)
18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was just curious why in closing a "keep" you wrote "Note that a keep close doesn't prevent us from revisiting this issue later". That's of course always the case (though the fact that notability is not fleeting is also the case). Why would you stress it here? Is that something you always include in a keep close? I would find it peculiar in a no consensus close, but even more so in a keep. I was curious why you would say it in that close. It seems to undermine the close and invite further time spent on the same issue we already spent time on, without any rationale for undermining it. IMHO. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I wanted to see if my proposed rewrite would satisfy the NPOV, and meet the criteria of Biography of Living Person, Author, Educator, or whatever other Category it belongs under. Please take a look at my User Talk page, and see if it would pass muster, feel free to edit or add notes for me. Thank you for your time. RennaissanceWarfare ( talk) 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron R,
First of all, apologies for editing your
Page notice uninvited.
Thank you! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your comment about closing — I don't dare close a discussion. I've never figured out how to do it properly, and the one time I tried, I somehow closed every discussion in the entire day's AFD log. Nyttend ( talk) 16:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think this article should not be deleted until more research is done. Due to the variations in spelling of his name the links at the top of the deletion page would not bring up results, as they only searched for the spelling Valery Nikolaevsky , and not Valerij Nikolaevskij. This gave an impression that the author was not notable. However, the latter spelling as I pointed out in the deletion discussion yielded more results, which where significant, and cast new light on his notability, for example the author/poet has been a member of P.E.N. (Poets, Essayists and Novelists). I would be grateful if you would reconsider this deletion request, and allowing the article to remain until more research is done. Kind Regards 62.254.133.139 ( talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sir, can you please tell me why you deleted the page of Hector Kim? That particular page talks about a real-life Korean American photographer. Before you deleted the Hector Kim page, I was reading it and I found real references. So can you please tell me why would you delete this page despite it having references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallnight12 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I plan to DRV that decision unless you can detail how the valid arguments made there add up to a no consensus outcome. The Afd is clearly a NOT#NEWS case, and the only even remotely valid keep votes did not come close to addressing or rebutting that, they barely even get beyond basic assertion that there was 'massive' or 'widespread' coverage out there which 'clearly' means it's notable, and simply ignored the fact that the GNG is a presumption, which does not overide NOT, which is a policy. Wikipedia doesn't need closures that endorse this kind of weak argumentation or overides policies in favour of guidelines. There were more than enough cogent arguments form the POV of WP:NOT to be able to call that a consensus to delete. I would be particularly interested in for example how you weighed up Dream Focus' non-response to the two on point objections to his keep, again, based on the simple assertion that there was "ample coverage", in terms of whether he satisfactorally rebutted the NOT#NEWS argument. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I re-examined the discussion and I have decided to stand by my close. Yes some of the "keep" arguments were weak but some had good points. If anybody still feels that this could have been closed as "delete", then they are welcome to have it re-evaluated at deletion review. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, what a waste of time that was. Lack of explanation of the Afd closure glossed over at DRV, which was yet again, closed with zero explanation. I am still none the wiser as to which keep arguments you even thought were valid, let alone how the delete ones weren't, or how you dealt with anything more nuanced in weighing up the debate, like counter-points and rebuttals. You will see from the Drv that I didn't even realise until too late that it's not possible to even call that Afd a 60% keep outcome, without relying on a basic vote count and including all the clueless votes aswell (and by my reckoning, there were 5 of those on the keep side and just 2 on the delete side). And that's being generous, counting the merges as keeps, and calling 'it made CNN' and the like a 'valid' argument, in a NOT#NEWS debate of all things. That was a 'no consensus' closure all day every day. Without a radical change in NOT, a repeat Afd 6 months down the line citing NOT#NEWS or EVENT has absolutely no chance of succeeding thanks to your keep close, and NTEMP, whether there is any more coverage or not. If that was what you intended by that closure, you have got it wrong. If not, you got it totally wrong. MickMacNee ( talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You gave no rationale for this decision. I have proven that the subject was notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for using common sense and have relisted this item [3] for discussion again.-- Sylvio Sant ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion was delete, but the article itself has not been deleted.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete my page I had already asked regarding more references and expected an answer not the whole page to be deleted, that took a long time to put together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.211 ( talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This afternoon I added more reliable sources (Stanford University) to the site and updated the log accordingly. We believe to have made some good progress and points why this article should not be deleted. While NASA is not an outside source, it still is a source. openNASA and Stanford University are both reliable outside sources and as indicated in the discussions Boeing is releasing a press-release next week which we are also planning on using as a source. Could you please advise how to proceed now? Thank you Romeoch ( talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources for you to re-evaluate the pertinence of the IHIQS Wikipedia entry and reinstate the page.
Also, a 2003 article in Details magazine which I couldn't find in my 10 minute search of the Internet using Google, but it's out there.
Thank you and kind regards,
Jean-Pierre Levac IHIQS member #92 Managing Director, Hamilton Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.251.45 ( talk) 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Ron Ritzman, thank you for carrying out the AFD close relating to article, Jessica Feshbach. I know that the respondents to the AFD were unanimous in the consensus (apart from the nominator), but perhaps due to the controversial nature of the subject matter - you could elaborate on your close comments, even just a tad bit? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering why you put the page 'Witney and District League 2010' season page up for deletion, What seems to be the problem of the page?
Thanks, Shaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblueshaun ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ron, Recently you deleted an article called Aqua Data Studio. I would to ask you considering restoration of this article because the deletion discussion was controversial and the final argument was not accurate. After the lack of references and citations had been pointed out, references to a number of books having citations regarding the subject of the article were added. The final comment was made saying “Delete until legitimate sourcing clearly meeting WP:RS is provided. Press releases, raw search results and mentions in non-notable books do not establish notability”. I cannot agree with this comment beacuase WP:RS guidelines specify reliable sources of information and questionable sources. The referenced books are from the publishers such as O'Reilly, Elsevier, Sams. These publishing agencies are not “Self-published and questionable sources” as it described in the WP:RS guidelines. On contrary they are credible, independent and neutral; hence the last comment in the deletion discussion is groundless and cannot be prevailing in the discussion resolution. All other critics regarding the article was addressed by adding the references.
-- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi RR, I wasn't sure who to come to on this one but I know you close AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League satellite decoder case came to a consensus some time ago, and I have gone ahead with the merge suggested. But the debate has not been closed. I note that the page is not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 9, which may be the reason why it has been neglected. Thanks. — Half Price 10:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
You deleted the Shoto Tanemura Page on the basis that it lacked proper independent proof of his grand mastership of all the styles claimed on the page and that was therefore not enough to create notability. I will not argue that point, although having met the person, I believe that the statements are true. I would argue that his teaching martial arts indirectly to the schools in approximately 30 countries, that he is the head of the Genbukan World Ninpo Bugei Federation and that as such has given seminars across the world and has been subject to articles in Black Belt (1985, 1986), Karate Bushido, and that he is a published author (Ninpo Secrets: Philosophy, History and Techniques, Shoto T. Tanemura, ISBN-10: 0972088423) should entitle him a page on wikipedia as notability. I would therefore appreciate if you could restore the page.
Thanks
Achapeau ( talk) 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Alexandre Chapeaux, October 28th, 2010
Hello! I have tagged my subpage: User:Armbrust/EditCounterOptIn.js with {{ db-user}}, but it didn't work. Could you delete it for me? Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you deleted Rhub Communications' article? Happysantacruz ( talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that—I haven't closed an AfD in probably 3 years! — Deck iller 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to where you correlated the Yuri Rutman Wikipedia article with a "spammer" and for dubious sources as a way to delete a profile on him. It seems there are several Yuri Rutman's on google. You also referenced "not prominent or questionable sources" Please verify your sources on imdbpro.com and ask how him producing a film that is being directed by one of the most prominent film directors in the world and is being co-produced by company that recently made a Jessica Biel and Milla Jovovich film is "dubious" along with 6 other films his company is currently producing and financing. IMDBPRO does not list credits unless they do extensive due diligence. Further, you referenced that press releases were written by him or his company. Please check your facts again when MSNBC recently profiled him at http://www.cnbc.com/id/39342145/Investing_In_The_Big_Screen_Can_Be_A_Profitable_Story as well as numerous prominent private equity and hedge fund publications http://www.hedgeweek.com/2010/02/02/32989/noci-targets-hedge-fund-investors-film-finance. These publications do extensive due diligence. If there is some sort of personal bias between you and one of the Mr. Rutman's which is indexed more than ten years ago in a newsgroup post your referenced, its highly suggested you check your facts and do your homework before arbitrarily trying to identify one individual as someone else and can fall into an area of slander and libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.196.84 ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe this AfD also was supposed to include 2026 Winter Olympics. VernoWhitney ( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron,
I just noticed that yesterday, you deleted The BlackCommentator. Why did you do that? We've been in business since 2002, have readers in nearly every country on the globe and are, this coming week, publishing our 400th issue. Especially with the 400th issue, there may be more people than usual interested in reading what I had placed in Wikipedia. Kindly restore the post. Thank you. 76.98.165.75 ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Nancy Littlefield, Managing Editor, BlackCommentator.com 10/31/2010
Hi. You kept relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison - and now it seems that someone has closed the debate before a full week has passed - in the middle of discussion, and after two people very quickly voted 'delete' out of nowhere, after 2 weeks of inactivity. Should this have been allowed to at least reach the end of the third week, and at least for the discussion to end? Let me know if I'm asking in the wrong place.. Thanks. Tduk ( talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ron. Your closing rationale at this AfD discussion is a bit confusing for me, particularly the BLP part of it. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin (Ron Ritzman),
FlexiProvider is a free cryptographic java provider. It needs your help to be more famus and more usable. I am still new on wikipedia and I will try to solve the problems that make you delet it.
Could you please restore the FlexiProvider page?
Best Regards, Mohamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaied75 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Salt it too please? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm trying to list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Diaz (announcer) on the log page (TW failed for some reason), but I keep getting edit conflicts. Can you please list it when you are finished relisting. Thanks The-Pope ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An AFD is still open [4], you extending it for further discussion, but one user keeps erasing the AFD notice on the article page. I tried reverting him, but he just did it again, and left me a message on my talk page [5]. He claims he was notified that the discussion was over. Dream Focus 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings! Female Servants in 18th Century England has been accepted into the Article Incubator. Please see the talk page for the entry review and suggested tasks. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
You seem to be doing lots of AfD closing, so could you get this one here please? I'm the nominator, but my concerns have been sufficiently alleviated that I am satisfied to withdraw it. Thanks! Risker ( talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorrry abt removing the tag - I'd been keeping a watch on the date for the AfD and simply assumed that time was up. PiCo ( talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That was some good rationale. Nice work. Cptnono ( talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I decided to chime in with my own two cents on how the entries for terrorist attacks in this region are evaluated with some brief ramblings on my user page, User:Mtiffany71, and I'd like your feedback. Thanks. Mtiffany71 ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm afraid that I don't agree with your "no consensus" decision in this debate. Rather than taking it to Deletion Review now, I thought I'd query it first. Ignoring the "SPA activity", 6 regular editors recommended to delete, and 3 recommended to keep. To post this as a no consensus rather than keep the debate open, or even close as a delete (one keep was the creator of the article, too), seems a little bit of an inclusionist decision. I voted in the AFD, so I can't as an administrator reverse your decision as a conflict of interest, so perhaps you could review it yourself. Esteffect ( talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you deleted The Howard Stern Show games and bits just now, it left behind four redirects pointing to it. I have G8-ed them all, and I am not writing to complain, but to recommend to you an excellent script, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD which makes closing AfDs very easy. Among its facilities are a box you can tick to say "delete redirects" which it then does automatically. There is a companion script User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD which does what it says, so that you can scroll up the list of AfDs only seeing those that are still open. That one is not so foolproof - if you go away from the AfD log it loses its place and also turns itself off so that you have to turn it on again, but it's still useful. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Talk about a "save" from the very brink of the abyss! I hate fighting through translating Spanish and Portugese... but damned if I was going to let this one die because no one else did it. That my work caused a 100% turnaround in opinion was quite gratifying. Thanks for the close. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I see that you relisted this, but I think that it can be speedily kept as the nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm moving it to the incubator." Not true, I added a source (arguably) establishing notability, and noted this in my comment at the AfD page. GregorB ( talk) 00:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi RonR,
There is still an {{AfDM}} template + other bits and pieces at
Imran Channa, tho the discussion was closed as keep yesterday. Can a non-admin remove these, and if so, what bits? I'm especially leery of going anywhere near the <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Imran Channa visual artist|date=26 September 2010|result='''keep'''}} --> bit!
Thank you!--
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the re-listing... but it kinda saddens me that no one else has commented since then. In looking at the article itself, the only real flaw I perceive is perhaps in its correctable style, as it is far better sourced than many BLPs. And while the nominator had real concerns about a series of articles created by SPAs... I myself pretty much figure that once an article is ours, its OURS... and need be evaluated on its merits rather than on its author's motivations. When I get home from work tonight, I'll go through it and give it a cleaning up... and post it on a few other delsorts... and then may even ask the nominator to reconsider. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
I, -- Cirt ( talk), award The Admin's Barnstar to Ron Ritzman, for continued admin efforts in the area of closure of deletion discussions. These contributions to the project benefit the community and are valued by the project. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
Ron,
I would be grateful for a bit more explanation for your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_bookstore,_Gaza, the article is now at The_Teacher's_Bookshop. I don't feel like the points I made were rebuffed so would like to know how you reached your conclusion. I'm sorry to bring this to you late, but I've been away. Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am considering closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang promptly. Its 7-day period has just expired, an hour or two ago, by my calculations. I have asked Chaser whether xe has any objections. Uncle G ( talk) 11:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
collapsed text of references for readibility |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
G'day there - I was going to close it the same way but it's not a BLP! -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series, which you closed, is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 7#Untitled 2011 AMC television series. Cunard ( talk) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
G'Day. Per Wikipedia Policy, an article up for deletion should definitely have more than 6 hours of review. There was no reason for a speedy close. You stated: "The result was speedy close. Obvious violation of WP:POINT."
Who violated it?
Please state the "obvious" proof of this violation that puts the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?
The article
Quickly clearly has a lack of content, little verifiability with only 1 reference, and almost no notability per
Notability_in_Wikipedia. Of course, an admin such as yourself should already realize this. I strongly suggest that you approach each deletion review with a clean slate and remain objective per wikipedia policies. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FrosteaTheSnowman (
talk •
contribs)
Well for one, an admin should not assume what one would have likely or would not have likely done, it is unprofessional to approach a, what should be objective, situation with a pre-concieved notion. The reason on the AfD was completely viable and on point per Wikipedia's policy for deletion.
May be possible? Do you not see the lack of
Wikipedia:Notability or
Wikipedia:Verifiability in that article? As one who serves for Wikipedia's greater good - Why don't you nominate it, instead of waiting for someone else?
Best Regards
FrosteaTheSnowman (
talk)
18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was just curious why in closing a "keep" you wrote "Note that a keep close doesn't prevent us from revisiting this issue later". That's of course always the case (though the fact that notability is not fleeting is also the case). Why would you stress it here? Is that something you always include in a keep close? I would find it peculiar in a no consensus close, but even more so in a keep. I was curious why you would say it in that close. It seems to undermine the close and invite further time spent on the same issue we already spent time on, without any rationale for undermining it. IMHO. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I wanted to see if my proposed rewrite would satisfy the NPOV, and meet the criteria of Biography of Living Person, Author, Educator, or whatever other Category it belongs under. Please take a look at my User Talk page, and see if it would pass muster, feel free to edit or add notes for me. Thank you for your time. RennaissanceWarfare ( talk) 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron R,
First of all, apologies for editing your
Page notice uninvited.
Thank you! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your comment about closing — I don't dare close a discussion. I've never figured out how to do it properly, and the one time I tried, I somehow closed every discussion in the entire day's AFD log. Nyttend ( talk) 16:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think this article should not be deleted until more research is done. Due to the variations in spelling of his name the links at the top of the deletion page would not bring up results, as they only searched for the spelling Valery Nikolaevsky , and not Valerij Nikolaevskij. This gave an impression that the author was not notable. However, the latter spelling as I pointed out in the deletion discussion yielded more results, which where significant, and cast new light on his notability, for example the author/poet has been a member of P.E.N. (Poets, Essayists and Novelists). I would be grateful if you would reconsider this deletion request, and allowing the article to remain until more research is done. Kind Regards 62.254.133.139 ( talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sir, can you please tell me why you deleted the page of Hector Kim? That particular page talks about a real-life Korean American photographer. Before you deleted the Hector Kim page, I was reading it and I found real references. So can you please tell me why would you delete this page despite it having references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallnight12 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I plan to DRV that decision unless you can detail how the valid arguments made there add up to a no consensus outcome. The Afd is clearly a NOT#NEWS case, and the only even remotely valid keep votes did not come close to addressing or rebutting that, they barely even get beyond basic assertion that there was 'massive' or 'widespread' coverage out there which 'clearly' means it's notable, and simply ignored the fact that the GNG is a presumption, which does not overide NOT, which is a policy. Wikipedia doesn't need closures that endorse this kind of weak argumentation or overides policies in favour of guidelines. There were more than enough cogent arguments form the POV of WP:NOT to be able to call that a consensus to delete. I would be particularly interested in for example how you weighed up Dream Focus' non-response to the two on point objections to his keep, again, based on the simple assertion that there was "ample coverage", in terms of whether he satisfactorally rebutted the NOT#NEWS argument. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I re-examined the discussion and I have decided to stand by my close. Yes some of the "keep" arguments were weak but some had good points. If anybody still feels that this could have been closed as "delete", then they are welcome to have it re-evaluated at deletion review. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, what a waste of time that was. Lack of explanation of the Afd closure glossed over at DRV, which was yet again, closed with zero explanation. I am still none the wiser as to which keep arguments you even thought were valid, let alone how the delete ones weren't, or how you dealt with anything more nuanced in weighing up the debate, like counter-points and rebuttals. You will see from the Drv that I didn't even realise until too late that it's not possible to even call that Afd a 60% keep outcome, without relying on a basic vote count and including all the clueless votes aswell (and by my reckoning, there were 5 of those on the keep side and just 2 on the delete side). And that's being generous, counting the merges as keeps, and calling 'it made CNN' and the like a 'valid' argument, in a NOT#NEWS debate of all things. That was a 'no consensus' closure all day every day. Without a radical change in NOT, a repeat Afd 6 months down the line citing NOT#NEWS or EVENT has absolutely no chance of succeeding thanks to your keep close, and NTEMP, whether there is any more coverage or not. If that was what you intended by that closure, you have got it wrong. If not, you got it totally wrong. MickMacNee ( talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You gave no rationale for this decision. I have proven that the subject was notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for using common sense and have relisted this item [3] for discussion again.-- Sylvio Sant ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion was delete, but the article itself has not been deleted.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete my page I had already asked regarding more references and expected an answer not the whole page to be deleted, that took a long time to put together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.211 ( talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This afternoon I added more reliable sources (Stanford University) to the site and updated the log accordingly. We believe to have made some good progress and points why this article should not be deleted. While NASA is not an outside source, it still is a source. openNASA and Stanford University are both reliable outside sources and as indicated in the discussions Boeing is releasing a press-release next week which we are also planning on using as a source. Could you please advise how to proceed now? Thank you Romeoch ( talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources for you to re-evaluate the pertinence of the IHIQS Wikipedia entry and reinstate the page.
Also, a 2003 article in Details magazine which I couldn't find in my 10 minute search of the Internet using Google, but it's out there.
Thank you and kind regards,
Jean-Pierre Levac IHIQS member #92 Managing Director, Hamilton Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.251.45 ( talk) 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Ron Ritzman, thank you for carrying out the AFD close relating to article, Jessica Feshbach. I know that the respondents to the AFD were unanimous in the consensus (apart from the nominator), but perhaps due to the controversial nature of the subject matter - you could elaborate on your close comments, even just a tad bit? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering why you put the page 'Witney and District League 2010' season page up for deletion, What seems to be the problem of the page?
Thanks, Shaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblueshaun ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ron, Recently you deleted an article called Aqua Data Studio. I would to ask you considering restoration of this article because the deletion discussion was controversial and the final argument was not accurate. After the lack of references and citations had been pointed out, references to a number of books having citations regarding the subject of the article were added. The final comment was made saying “Delete until legitimate sourcing clearly meeting WP:RS is provided. Press releases, raw search results and mentions in non-notable books do not establish notability”. I cannot agree with this comment beacuase WP:RS guidelines specify reliable sources of information and questionable sources. The referenced books are from the publishers such as O'Reilly, Elsevier, Sams. These publishing agencies are not “Self-published and questionable sources” as it described in the WP:RS guidelines. On contrary they are credible, independent and neutral; hence the last comment in the deletion discussion is groundless and cannot be prevailing in the discussion resolution. All other critics regarding the article was addressed by adding the references.
-- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi RR, I wasn't sure who to come to on this one but I know you close AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League satellite decoder case came to a consensus some time ago, and I have gone ahead with the merge suggested. But the debate has not been closed. I note that the page is not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 9, which may be the reason why it has been neglected. Thanks. — Half Price 10:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
You deleted the Shoto Tanemura Page on the basis that it lacked proper independent proof of his grand mastership of all the styles claimed on the page and that was therefore not enough to create notability. I will not argue that point, although having met the person, I believe that the statements are true. I would argue that his teaching martial arts indirectly to the schools in approximately 30 countries, that he is the head of the Genbukan World Ninpo Bugei Federation and that as such has given seminars across the world and has been subject to articles in Black Belt (1985, 1986), Karate Bushido, and that he is a published author (Ninpo Secrets: Philosophy, History and Techniques, Shoto T. Tanemura, ISBN-10: 0972088423) should entitle him a page on wikipedia as notability. I would therefore appreciate if you could restore the page.
Thanks
Achapeau ( talk) 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Alexandre Chapeaux, October 28th, 2010
Hello! I have tagged my subpage: User:Armbrust/EditCounterOptIn.js with {{ db-user}}, but it didn't work. Could you delete it for me? Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you deleted Rhub Communications' article? Happysantacruz ( talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that—I haven't closed an AfD in probably 3 years! — Deck iller 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to where you correlated the Yuri Rutman Wikipedia article with a "spammer" and for dubious sources as a way to delete a profile on him. It seems there are several Yuri Rutman's on google. You also referenced "not prominent or questionable sources" Please verify your sources on imdbpro.com and ask how him producing a film that is being directed by one of the most prominent film directors in the world and is being co-produced by company that recently made a Jessica Biel and Milla Jovovich film is "dubious" along with 6 other films his company is currently producing and financing. IMDBPRO does not list credits unless they do extensive due diligence. Further, you referenced that press releases were written by him or his company. Please check your facts again when MSNBC recently profiled him at http://www.cnbc.com/id/39342145/Investing_In_The_Big_Screen_Can_Be_A_Profitable_Story as well as numerous prominent private equity and hedge fund publications http://www.hedgeweek.com/2010/02/02/32989/noci-targets-hedge-fund-investors-film-finance. These publications do extensive due diligence. If there is some sort of personal bias between you and one of the Mr. Rutman's which is indexed more than ten years ago in a newsgroup post your referenced, its highly suggested you check your facts and do your homework before arbitrarily trying to identify one individual as someone else and can fall into an area of slander and libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.196.84 ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe this AfD also was supposed to include 2026 Winter Olympics. VernoWhitney ( talk) 05:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron,
I just noticed that yesterday, you deleted The BlackCommentator. Why did you do that? We've been in business since 2002, have readers in nearly every country on the globe and are, this coming week, publishing our 400th issue. Especially with the 400th issue, there may be more people than usual interested in reading what I had placed in Wikipedia. Kindly restore the post. Thank you. 76.98.165.75 ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Nancy Littlefield, Managing Editor, BlackCommentator.com 10/31/2010
Hi. You kept relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison - and now it seems that someone has closed the debate before a full week has passed - in the middle of discussion, and after two people very quickly voted 'delete' out of nowhere, after 2 weeks of inactivity. Should this have been allowed to at least reach the end of the third week, and at least for the discussion to end? Let me know if I'm asking in the wrong place.. Thanks. Tduk ( talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ron. Your closing rationale at this AfD discussion is a bit confusing for me, particularly the BLP part of it. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin (Ron Ritzman),
FlexiProvider is a free cryptographic java provider. It needs your help to be more famus and more usable. I am still new on wikipedia and I will try to solve the problems that make you delet it.
Could you please restore the FlexiProvider page?
Best Regards, Mohamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaied75 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Salt it too please? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm trying to list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Diaz (announcer) on the log page (TW failed for some reason), but I keep getting edit conflicts. Can you please list it when you are finished relisting. Thanks The-Pope ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An AFD is still open [4], you extending it for further discussion, but one user keeps erasing the AFD notice on the article page. I tried reverting him, but he just did it again, and left me a message on my talk page [5]. He claims he was notified that the discussion was over. Dream Focus 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings! Female Servants in 18th Century England has been accepted into the Article Incubator. Please see the talk page for the entry review and suggested tasks. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)