User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ron Ritzman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I was rather confused by your closure of this AfD. I believe that considering the lack of comments the debate needs to relisted. It also doesn't exactly meet the criteria for an obvious keep. LeaveSleaves 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep wouldn't apply, given the time frame (its for fast closures). It was pointless to relist a second time in my opinion. Synergy 02:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know it was not exactly a straightforward speedy keep. But I assumed that's how the AfD was closed. But if I'm wrong, I take that back. And I don't think second relisting is such a bad idea. I've seen it being applied pretty commonly. LeaveSleaves 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. WP:NAC is more of what happened here. A second relisting could have been done, but given how long its been sitting there, with no comments, it was unlikely to have stirred up anything new. Synergy 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'd still like a reply though. LeaveSleaves 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been trying to reply for the past 10 minutes, edit conflicts :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'd still like a reply though. LeaveSleaves 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. WP:NAC is more of what happened here. A second relisting could have been done, but given how long its been sitting there, with no comments, it was unlikely to have stirred up anything new. Synergy 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was my thought. It was listed for 10 days (relisted once) with nobody but the nominator saying "delete". Relisting a second time would have been almost pointless. If it were only open for 5 days with 2 "keeps" one "weak", I would have relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not exactly passionate about it. Just thought relist was a better choice. We'd have to see what the nominator thinks of it. LeaveSleaves 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know it was not exactly a straightforward speedy keep. But I assumed that's how the AfD was closed. But if I'm wrong, I take that back. And I don't think second relisting is such a bad idea. I've seen it being applied pretty commonly. LeaveSleaves 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Rick Simpson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rick Simpson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Simpson. Thank you. LK (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Trout
*picks out fish scale* Well, I suppose I deserve it for not checking the policy updates. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw your non-administrative closure of Cathy Silvers AFD. According to the criteria, multiple significant roles are required. The article mentions that she's had only 1 role in 1 TV series. So according to the criteria, she didn't seem notable to me. I didn't nominate it to be mean. I nominated it because it didn't seem to meet the criteria. None of the keep comments disputed my delete reasons. Should you re-open the AFD??? Ipromise (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- As an admin, I would've closed it the same way. I don't think re-opening this AfD will serve any useful purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The debate was open for 5 days (minus 3 hours) and unfortunately, you were the only editor arguing for deletion. I don't think relisting it would have made a difference but if you still disagree, you can have the close reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you closed the discussion. Just reminding you to also remove the AfD template from the page when doing so. I've done it for you, so just a reminder for the future. Good call and continuing the merge discussion on the article talk page. Will set it up right now, if it isn't up already. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 06:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why the relist on the hoax article that nobody voted to keep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- When doing an initial run through the log, I quickly relist everything that lacks comment's/!votes and this discussion only had yours. (User:Download's !vote was actually posted after the relist) In this case it was probably a little too quick but fortunately, a "bad relist", unlike a bad close, is easy to fix. In this case it was just closed 'Delete by DragonflySixtyseven. I'm a lot more careful when evaluating an AFD for a close.
- BTW if this hoax was blatant, couldn't it have been deleted under CSD G4? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- G3, I think you mean. But in any case, I don't think G3 applied. G3 would be talking about Obama's years in McMurdo Sound -- obviously debunkable, since his life is well-documented. On this one, we just didn't have any evidence that supported the article, and no evidence that showed the claims were definitely false (like a list of all the musicians at the sessions he was claimed to be at). Hence, full prod or AfD required.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009
Ron, you relisted WP:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney when it had not been closed. Not only was this a problem, had the AfD been, itself, legitimate, but perhaps you did not notice that the nominator was an SPA created when an IP was warned about vandalizing the article. The IP then voted in the AfD. The standing !vote was, then, among those responding other than the nominator, only one !vote for Delete, with two for Keep. (Not only would we disregard the nominator's revote, but we would also normally disregard the !votes of SPAs and newly-registered accounts with few edits.) This AfD would almost certainly have closed as Keep or No Consensus, which is effectively Keep, with renomination discouraged for a month or more. I'm taking this AfD to AN/I because it's a poster boy for disruptive AfD process. This SPA led the community by the nose into a disruptive debate over marginal notability, and your idea that we should find "consensus" in AfDs (better than the quite acceptable rough consensus that existed when you relisted) is itself disruptive. Please reconsider it. Please do not disrupt AfD process, it's enough of a problem without this. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I see a series of relistings today that are similarly improper. I will be reverting them as I can, and I have reported this issue to AN/I with [1]. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thread here: Relistings of AfDs by non-administrators. –xeno (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- There being support expressed for your relisting actions at AN/I, I have reverted myself on the one relisting that I reverted. I still believe that the specific relisting you did with Garrison Courtney was inappropriate, given that there was only one legitimate editor who agreed with the deletion nomination, but my issue is now more with the editor who enabled the nominator to bypass editing restrictions on AfD by IP and new editors. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- However, today you relisted ten AfDs in five minutes. A relisting is a form of close, it requires review of the various aspects of the AfD (including such questions as editor status, i.e., SPA? sock?), as well as consideration of the arguments, just as would any other closure. WP:RELIST suggests:
- However, if at the end of the initial five 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, with a goal of obtaining further sufficient discussion in order to determine consensus, and with the understanding that it may be subject to being closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting a further five days.
- That said, relisting a debate should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If closer feels that there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.
- I do not think it is possible to review the arguments and issues in most AfDs in thirty seconds. Further, the AfD that attracted my attention to your relisting practices had the nominator plus three editors !voting, which is double the number that the guideline considers might suggest relisting. There was even one more !vote than that, but it was the nominator !voting as IP. From the speed of your relistings, it appears that you are using some kind of quick decision based only on !votes, and perhaps a snap judgment without review of the evidence. That is very much contrary to the concept of Wikipedia article deletion. Please stop unless you can obtain consensus for what you have been doing. --Abd (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on WP:AN/I --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nice reply, too. Sorry about the "warning." Luck of the draw, the one AfD that I look at closely, a vandal nomination.... However, this does bring up an issue that I'd like to discuss. I'll open up a new Talk section, assuming you don't mind. You are doing yeoman work, but whenever someone does a lot of work, and especially if it's done quickly and efficiently, as with scripts, it's important to understand exactly what's going on. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD relistings and closes.
As you know, you are doing, sometimes, many closes or relistings, very rapidly. My first concern is with relistings. The rapidity of your relistings leads me to think that you are relisting based on the number of !votes, but I think that would be improper. WP:RELIST has this to say, at this point:
- ...if at the end of the initial five 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, with a goal of obtaining further sufficient discussion in order to determine consensus, and with the understanding that it may be subject to being closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting a further five days.
- That said, relisting a debate should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If closer feels that there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.
Notice "it may be appropriate." Notice also that relisting is something that a "closer" does. The first paragraph quoted is in some level of conflict with the second, and that reflects Wikipedia standard flexibility. However, when you are running scripts, the kind of judgment that is expected can go out the window. It's easy to see the number of !votes.
First of all, consider the minimum situation. A nominator nominates a deletion. Nobody comments. Should it be relisted? The situation is that one person has proposed deletion. A closer arrives, to decide between Keep, Delete, No Consensus, Merge, or Relist. These are all judgments, all should be made by someone uninvolved, and the same principles are involved for all of them. Number of votes is a standard that allows relisting, it certainly does not require it.
Seeing such an AfD, a potential closer has a number of options: Close with some variety of Keep (Keep, Merge, No Consensus) or Delete
Relist
Do Nothing.
Do Nothing is what a potential closer should consider if the closer doesn't have a clear opinion based on the evidence and arguments (unless the closer has investigated thoroughly and seeks better guidance from the community, it being an issue of weight involved).
In this minimal case, Relisting expresses an opinion, in effect, that the matter is worthy of consideration. I'm arguing that if you are going to relist, you should vote Delete, and you should have formed a basis for that vote in evidence and policy. You should have arrived, like any potential closer, neutral. Then you do enough research that you come up with Delete, you relist, and then you !vote, leaving the decision to someone else.
In standard deliberative practice, a rule is that no question is debated unless upon the appearance of a second, there having been reasonable opportunity for such to appear. This kind of rule is absolutely necessary in deliberative bodies that have any substantial business to do, and it saves countless hours of unnecessary debate.
A nomination with no confirming comment should properly fail for lack of a second. As you know, the nominator can come back later and raise the issue again. We are most likely wasting time by relisting such a nomination.
If you, however, investigating, find that you would decide Keep based on your own examination of the evidence, you have several choices: You could close as No consensus. (which is certainly accurate, there is, at that point, no consensus to delete, and with articles, the status quo is Keep; if that weren't true, the article would be a Speedy candidate anyway). You can't close as Keep, I'd suggest, because no consensus has been formed. If you comment, you can't close. Merge closes are actually irrelevant, in a way, because they can be reversed at any time (though this is a tad controversial), they also could be done without AfD.
If your conclusion is Keep, then relisting is asking a community which hasn't expressed an opinion to consider deleting the article, when you believe that this is the wrong conclusion. Asking the community to debate something that it need not do is wasting the community's time. The nominator, of course, thinks the article worthy of deletion, usually. (I've seen an admin nominate for deletion because he promised to do so; it was a bad idea, in fact.) So the nominator properly asks for it.
It's been argued that deletion debates should stay open for seven days, not five. I'd agree. Lots of people have weekly schedules and may only check their Watchlists once a week (if that!).
Anyway, you are gaining a lot of experience with relistings and some closes. For relistings, I suggest, and especially if you are going to do many of them quickly, you should develop and express clear standards for relisting. Otherwise you are likely to simply based them on !votes (and, remember, we don't make decisions based on !votes), or on other unknown reasons.
There is a more general problem of what standards the community follows, but I'm now just asking about your standards. Your standards might become the community standards. Or vice-versa. Or maybe they already are, and I just don't know that.
If you express the standards that you follow, then we can discuss those standards. Otherwise I remain concerned about practices that involve ten relistings in five minutes.
Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, I have been relisting debates with 2 or fewer comments unless both are the same (unless both are weak (WP:ILIKEIT,WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "this article rulz", this article sucks etc. I may relist those) or with 4 comments split between "keep" and "delete" as was the case with the AFD that started this mess. If I had reason to relist a debate with 5 or more then I follow it up with a "relisting comment". I only relist a second time if there are no comments at all. I have been doing it like this because this is what others, including experienced admins, have been doing and because a debate that's "incorrectly" relisted can always be closed unlike an incorrectly closed AFD which usually has to go to DRV. Like I said in ANI, when I started working in AFD, the number of debates that seemed to need relisting shocked me and prompted me to make this proposal.
- Your take on relisting is something to think about but since it isn't standard practice right now, I recommend you present it to a wider forum such as WT:AFD or WT:DELPRO.
- On a final note, I completely suspected that it would be one of my closes that would get me in hot water due to all the fuss over non admin closures. However, I have only had one close reopened and it was by another non admin who IMHO wasn't exactly "uninvolved" and one went to DRV. I took it there myself. How many times does that happen? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A further note. I would have to disagree with you (at least at the moment) about only relisting if you think the article should be deleted. I have relisted several debates with one keep or two !votes split which attracted more sound "keep" !votes and I immediately closed them. You probably would argue that they should have been kept without relisting and you may be right but that isn't common practice right now. Furthermore, we have some nominators who like to throw "wikitantrums" if their noms are closed keep/nc without a boatload of "keeps" and/or by a non admin. Take a look at WP:DRV sometimes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the time you took in your response. My opinion is that the issue of minimal disruption has not been adequately considered by you, and that you are possibly relisting AfDs that don't need relisting.
- "Non-admin" should be irrelevant, and my issues here are unrelated to your lack of admin status. Indeed, I support non-admin closings and would even support non-admin closings as delete except for certain problems of scale. (At least, with admins, the number of people available for closing is reduced to a few hundred, in effect, and, in reality, even fewer.) It isn't true that a delete closing must go to DRV. I've arranged the reversal of a Delete closing simply by asking for it from the closing admin, with argument for a Keep. That is, in fact, the place where reversals should start, not DRV, which is overused. A few admins are irritated and won't discuss it, but that's their problem. Others look at the new argument and consider it. If they reject it, fine. Then I could go to DRV. But I don't go to DRV unless I think it reasonably likely that the community will accept the arguments for Keep. To me, the process is largely about how to make Keep/Delete decisions with minimal disruption, which means tending toward involving fewer editors, not more. More are appropriate when serious contention appears among a very few.
- The particular case where I think relisting is inappropriate is when an AfD doesn't show any support for Deletion other than the nomination. I'm saying that, before relisting such an AfD, you should make a conclusion about this specific AfD, does it have merit? That's why I suggested you should vote Delete if you relist. You are making a decision to attempt to involve more editors. If there is a trend toward more or less automatic relisting, it's a bad idea, caused by incomplete understanding, I'd suggest, of how good consensus process works. Any editor has a good shot at soliciting support with an AfD open for five days. (And I'd suggest seven would be better, maybe I'll work on that). If no support appears in that time, it's likely that, at best, keeping it open will result in No Consensus. All it takes is one support to take it out of this zone.
- What you acknowledge doing is counting votes to determine a process outcome. That is very much against guidelines. It matters, for example, who votes. We discount votes by IP editors, recent editors, and especially socks. The IP and recent editors are welcome to comment, but when one of them is the nominator, as in the recent problem AfD, we have a problem with possibly disruptive process being created by a vandal, as happened. But the same would be true for other new editors. Does the nomination allege a reasonable cause for AfD? The nomination in the problem AfD did not follow deletion guidelines. (It's not uncommon, by the way, but still, you should know and it should be considered.)
- This is a vanity page. Nothing is cited. I can't find anything on the DEA website that identifies Courtney as: "Chief of Public Affiars."
- Now, what would an ordinary closer do with this? Besides looking at the user contributions, and immediately seeing that this is an SPA dedicated to deleting the article, and then noticing the unsigned IP edit, looking at those contributions, and then realizing that this was a sock vote and that the affair began with vandalism, let's set that aside, and assume this is a regular editor. "This is a vanity page" is unsupported. The AfD contains a claim that the article was created by one user, which is true. It's true for most articles! The user was Cannabis who shows by contributions an interest in Cannabis, Hemp, and Ron Paul, quite congruent, and very much not in line with the someone being the Section Chief, Public Affairs, Drug Enforcement Administration. He could lose his job! No, this is someone who is interested in drug policy, and almost certainly not Courtney. "Vanity" is a perjorative argument that has nothing to do with deletion policy. A vanity article may be notable, or not. Vanity article should be cleaned up or deleted as non-notable and not worth the effort of cleanup. So the central issue is notability, and that is almost always what deletion debates should consider. Reliable source is relevant to that, to be sure, but to know whether an article might possibly be reliably sourced requires some searching. That's why sensible !votes in AfDs often report results from searches.
- So what a closer would do is to look at the article. You can't tell what is appropriate only from the !votes (at least not with just a couple; if an AfD is snowing, that's another matter). It only would take a few minutes to see that Garrison Courtney is, indeed, the Section Chief, Public Affairs, for the DEA. Notability is a far more difficult question and, as you can see, from the subsequent decision, controversial. There was a slight weight toward Keep. Before relisting, and discounting sock and new editor votes, it was 2:1 Keep.
- The AfD also asserts that the article is unreferenced. If an attempt is made to find references, and the failure is documented, then "unreferenced" actually means that there isn't adequate coverage in reliable source to have a verifiable article, and we depend on reliable sources like this to determine notability. (Note that a Keep argument in this AfD was improperly based on the number of Google hits. I'd be notable by that, if one knows what to search for. And I'm not notable, at least not yet.) Here is where the AfD enters truly controversial territory, but my opinion is that if somehow we got this AfD to the banner (what a waste of time!) most editors would say that the Public Affairs chief for the FDA is ex officio notable. Most editors would say that the fact the name appears in hundreds of articles in reliable sources would suggest that we should have an article. Remember, people go to encyclopedias to look things up. They see a name, "I wonder who that is." The source probably says what the office held is, but they want to know more. That's the argument for Keep. The argument for delete is that there is very little independent coverage of the man that actually is about him. But there is a little.
- A good closer would consider all this. I'm saying that if the closer decided that, reviewing the evidence and arguments, which frequently includes the closer's own research (which should be stated if it is a basis for the decision), the article should be kept, with the votes that were there (2:1 keep, or 3:2 delete if the socks weren't noticed), the closer should close as Keep or as No consensus. With the closer's opinion, independently formed, by someone uninvolved, and with the vandal's two votes properly discounted, it was 3:1 keep. Relisting would make no sense.
- But suppose the closer decides Delete. It becomes 2:2. That's either No Consensus or Delete {based on reported research), certainly not Keep. No Consensus would be different from the informed opinion of a neutral closer. This is where the closer would simultaneously recuse himself from closing by !voting Delete and giving the evidence. Before having done this, the closer might relist, under some circumstances.
- But never should the closer relist contrary to the closer's informed opinion. (Relisting has the effect of a delete opinion, it is as if the relister became the nominator, without spelling it out.) It may be relevant to relist with some AfDs based simply on the votes, but I'm fairly confident that the decision on this can't be well made quickly. Relisting doesn't save anyone any work. Closing does. So, my suggestion to you is to focus on closing, and mostly leave relisting alone. It isn't supposed to be a common decision, see WP:RELIST. Closing is more work, you will get fewer edits per hour! But the work will be far more useful.
- One thing we might do is to look at the history. What happened with relisted AfDs? Was it worth the extended discussion?
- I changed my mind. I think the article may have been created by the subject. But we shouldn't say that! I looked over the contributions, and it's a reasonable guess. Not important. One argument against it is that nearly every fact in the article checked out. An autobiography will often include details that are otherwise very difficult to verify. Maybe this one has some, I'm not sure. Student at George Mason University? But I think that's out on the web somewhere.... --Abd (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fluxx
I actually concur with your closure here, but I'm going to bet someone's going to raise a stink over it, especially the stakeholder of the article. In a way a closure for a 2nd nom with no clear consensus is just giving ammo to people to take it to WP:DRV successfully. As someone who occasionally closes redlinked AfDs, just a word of caution. Unless you're a sysop, I'd stay away from that sort of thing unless there's 100% nuclear-strength agreement :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- And to think that at the time I saw the yellow box, I was about to post a reply to the pump thread about using AFD for merge discussions. My close does seem contrary to what I am arguing there about AFD being primarily for "keep vs delete" discussions. However, if an AFD *is* closed as "merge" the tag does state that if the merge isn't done, then the article can be nominated again.
- In any case, the article is "redirected" and its history is still there. If those who want to keep Fluxx goals as a standalone article feel that strongly about it, they can revert my redirect and I won't make a fuss about it. (and if anybody comes to my talk page in opposition to the close I'll point them to this thread) However, that will likely mean a third AFD and the admin who closes that one might not be so generous. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for snagging the vandalism on my talk page. I thought it was a bit funny - wrong on so many counts. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
db-author on AFD
Yes, because the article got speedy-tagged while I was creating the AFD. Is a formal withdrawal even necessary?—Kww(talk) 22:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, but the best thing to do is to wait and see if the article actually gets deleted. If it does then the deleting admin will usually close the AFD himself. If he doesn't then anybody can close it. If the speedy request gets declined then the AFD can go forward as usual. In any case there's no need to delete the AFD page itself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the article never linked to it? I do these things in reverse: I build the AFD page, the links on the lists, and then add it to the article. In this case, when I went to add it to the article, there was no reason to add the link, so I never did. Muzemike must have found it by looking at my contributions.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- The AFD page had already been transcluded on the log. That means there was a big pink tag in the middle of today's AFD list and the log was in CAT:CSD. That's how both of us found it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the article never linked to it? I do these things in reverse: I build the AFD page, the links on the lists, and then add it to the article. In this case, when I went to add it to the article, there was no reason to add the link, so I never did. Muzemike must have found it by looking at my contributions.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Question
I am not very familiar with the deletion process. Can you explain to me where people stand on the Michael Ruppert deletion? I find it surprising that things happen so quickly around here especially with User: MBisanz. Please just answer me here, and use the talkback feature if you want, though I am watching your page for your reply. —Dixie Brown (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing I did was relist the debate as I usually do with debates with only one !vote. I don't know why he closed it "delete" after the relist and I won't second guess him. I would suggest you ask him about it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Follow up Actually, I misread. The debate was open for a full 10 days with nobody arguing "keep" or refuting the nominator's rationale. In cases like this it's not unusual for a debate with one comment to be closed "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Curiosity more than anything else governs my concern. The Ruppert article (as I recall) had a fair amount of talk discussion on its talkpage by various readers who expressed opinions one way or the other regarding Ruppert's notability. The article was approximately 2-3 years old, seemed more or less dormant, yet had some kind of a following. I stumbled upon the article while researching the credibility, reliability, and usefulness of semi-related material. Ruppert's writings on the internet centered primarily (if not entirely) around the Inslaw Affair, an important story which began in the 1980s and evolved during the next 10-15 years into a vast labyrinth of conspiracies, confusion, and U.S. government shenanigans. Ruppert maintained a website which (he claimed) had a fair number of subscribers from different areas of interest but which also were from inside the government. As in many conspiracies, Ruppert eventually closed shop, retreated into obscurity with a mystery surrounding his disappearance. The implication was: he had knowledge of the "truth" but worried for his life. What strikes me as odd in all of this is that the person who deleted the Wikipedia article showed absolutely no interest in participating in the editing or background of the article from the beginning of its inception to its demise. I do not recall seeing Matthew Bsainz's name anywhere within my cursory examination of the article. But I think that I can safely say that his deletion was motivated by something other than an understanding of the content of the article, or its background. Whether or not, anyone was aware that there was a deletion tag placed upon that article is really the question though. I noticed only that end result—although my "watchlist" was set to "watch" the article. The reason I noticed the deletion was caused by the red link line which appeared the moment the deletion was completed. If that had not appeared in my "watchlist", then I doubt that I would have noticed the deletion. Do I really care? No, not really. However, it bothers me that someone like Matthew can perform a deletion without allowing the principals involved in the article proper (and polite) notification. Ten days notice on a Wikipedia Incident board (far removed from the actual article) may not be enough. Maybe there should be a greater effort made when someone is about to delete an article that has an established (and decent) background. That is my only reason for my concern. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I checked the article and it did have the AFD tag placed at the beginning of the debate by User:John Nevard, it was relisted by Ron for having a lack of comments, and was then deleted by me per WP:RELIST which discourages subsequent relistings. The deletion guidelines for administrators discourage admins from closing AFDs on articles where they are active, to avoid conflict of interest matters. I've never heard of Ruppert before and you can see my AFD philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment deals primarily with the technical aspects surrounding the process of deletion. That's all well and good. However, the issue is two-fold really: whether or not the deletion took the content of the article into consideration, and whether or not an effort was made to consult with any of the primary editors. Your remark that you "never heard of Ruppert before" is telling. Apparently you did not address either of the two issues. Rather, it appears as if you dealt with the deletion purely from a technical point of view. To me, that is inconsiderate of the many months of work which may have gone into the development of the article, and is a "shot across the bow" of warning to all editors: "Be careful, all articles are subject to the whims of readers who may or may not know anything about the subject matter of your article". You say that User:John Nevard placed the Afd tag at the beginning of the debate. Was there any indication that Nevard participated in the talkpage? For example, see what is going on here (article and talk). When you check through the History of the Fred Crisman article, you see that there has been very little active interest since its creation in 2004, but User:ThsQ has had the courtesy of notifying the primary editors that he intends to nominate it for deletion within 100 days, or essentially he is firing a fair warning. Moreover, his talk statement adds that he has not seen any "development" in the article since it tagged it for "clean up" approximately 100 days before his statement to delete it. I find his approach refreshing. Certainly far more appealing that a technical process which takes place in the matter of ten days. —Dixie Brown (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the article had asserted any notability besides Ruppert being the author of the website on conspiracy theories, I might have. Nevard (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment deals primarily with the technical aspects surrounding the process of deletion. That's all well and good. However, the issue is two-fold really: whether or not the deletion took the content of the article into consideration, and whether or not an effort was made to consult with any of the primary editors. Your remark that you "never heard of Ruppert before" is telling. Apparently you did not address either of the two issues. Rather, it appears as if you dealt with the deletion purely from a technical point of view. To me, that is inconsiderate of the many months of work which may have gone into the development of the article, and is a "shot across the bow" of warning to all editors: "Be careful, all articles are subject to the whims of readers who may or may not know anything about the subject matter of your article". You say that User:John Nevard placed the Afd tag at the beginning of the debate. Was there any indication that Nevard participated in the talkpage? For example, see what is going on here (article and talk). When you check through the History of the Fred Crisman article, you see that there has been very little active interest since its creation in 2004, but User:ThsQ has had the courtesy of notifying the primary editors that he intends to nominate it for deletion within 100 days, or essentially he is firing a fair warning. Moreover, his talk statement adds that he has not seen any "development" in the article since it tagged it for "clean up" approximately 100 days before his statement to delete it. I find his approach refreshing. Certainly far more appealing that a technical process which takes place in the matter of ten days. —Dixie Brown (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I checked the article and it did have the AFD tag placed at the beginning of the debate by User:John Nevard, it was relisted by Ron for having a lack of comments, and was then deleted by me per WP:RELIST which discourages subsequent relistings. The deletion guidelines for administrators discourage admins from closing AFDs on articles where they are active, to avoid conflict of interest matters. I've never heard of Ruppert before and you can see my AFD philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets discuss
You do gnome work! There is something you do well. I'm not quite sure what to say about it, but I thought I'd stymie your complaints about.. well, complaints. You wouldn't happen to do copyediting, would you? Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Motley Moose
Thanks for the protip (I can't remember all these templates no matter how hard I try.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Gayle Wilson
Sure, I understand -- when the discussion is clearly headed in one direction, one may as well close early. The article remains terribly biased, though, and needs work. - Biruitorul Talk 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Great minds thinking alike?
I believe this might be a first: a tie in a non-admin closing for an AfD discussion: [2]. Very funny! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's happened before but I usually collide with User:Mbisanz or User:Juliancolton. All three of us tend to jump on the log at the same time using a closing script. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jason Hannasch
Hi, could you take a second look at your closure of the Jason Hannasch AFD please? I believe you may have made an error in your consensus declaration. There were two people plus the nom in favor of outright deletion, two in favor of redirect, and one in favor of keep. You listed the consensus as redirect. However, the discussion as summarized above doesn't seem to have reached any consensus at all. Thanks. Locke9k (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's the vice president of Show-Me Institute so a redirect to that article makes sense. If somebody can come up with something that establishes notability separate from his company they can restore the article and add the new sources, otherwise it should stay a redirect.
- A redirect, if possible is always a viable alternative to deletion. However, if you think the history should go then you are welcome to make your case at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Follow up, I just noticed that you removed Jason Hannasch from the target article after I closed the AFD. I'm curious as to why you didn't do this during the AFD and then mention that you did so in the AFD? I wouldn't have closed it in that case. At the time I closed it, he was mentioned in the article as "vice president" so a redirect made sense. If your edit is upheld, RFD is a possible option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry for the confusion. That would have been preferable. To be honest, I didn't notice that line in the Show-Me Institute article at that time. Was trying to keep up with too many articles undergoing major changes at the same time. Thanks - Locke9k (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Jason Hannasch
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Hannasch. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi, I did some work on this article and have just now removed the COI tag. I hope this is fine by you. Here's my justification on the article's talk page. Thanks. prashanthns (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the complement. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of AfDs?
It looks like you requested speedy deletion of a bunch of Articles for deletion pages, but I don't understand why. Could you clarify? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a project Mbisanz put me on. They are all orphaned AFDs from this list. The ones I'm CSDing are all abandoned AFDs that were never transcluded or closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep I asked him to sort that list since we shouldn't leave AFDs hanging out there unresolved. MBisanz talk 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to see why this should be considered G6 deletions (I declined the bunch I saw). First of all, G6 requires a further reasoning why the pages should be deleted (use
{{db-g6|wording=reason}}) and second, I do not think removing old AFDs where multiple people !voted on can be considered uncontroversial. I suggest you bundle them up into a WP:MFD nomination instead and allow further discussion whether they should really be deleted or maybe rather be kept. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)- Now that I understand what is going on, I suggest that one of two alternatives be followed. If the AfD was never closed, then formally close it. ("The result was Speedily deleted by User:Example in 2006.") Or, if the AfD was malformed and incomplete, but there was another AfD for the same article around the same time which was properly formed and closed, then delete the malformed one with an edit summary referring to the properly formed AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to see why this should be considered G6 deletions (I declined the bunch I saw). First of all, G6 requires a further reasoning why the pages should be deleted (use
- Yep I asked him to sort that list since we shouldn't leave AFDs hanging out there unresolved. MBisanz talk 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I responded on that thread. You did the right thing. However, closures can and should be challenged - it's part and parcel of the process. What went awry there was that Raeky was not fully aware of our correct process - but that in itself is not unusual, and should not be held against a person. The intent was simply to question the close, which was then upheld as appropriate. Don't let it bother you! Regards SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Did I make errors in my non-admin closure?
I don't do this often. If my formatting was incorrect I'll appreciate feedback. I've been reading debates and in this case I watched it for several days, decided WP:BOLD applied. I consider myself an editor in good standing and have participated in some significant deletion processes in the past. On reading this thread I can see why concerns might be raised against such closures (especially if they are in any way defective). If you care to comment, please do it here on your talk, and I'll pay attention. BusterD (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing really wrong with the close. You just put the templates in the wrong place so it messed up the formatting so I felt the quickest way to fix it was to rollback and reclose. The script I mentioned above takes care of that for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do appreciate. I'll look at the code on a couple normal closes and see exactly what to do next time. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD Nomination
Hi, I noticed that you are one of the administrators monitoring AfD discussions. I'm new to this process so just following the WP guidelines: "Notify users who monitor AfD discussion."
Here is the nomination. Please let me know if this was the incorrect course of action. Thanks in advance! Hazir (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The formatting looks fine and while it's a good idea to notify the article's creator, it's not required. The article in question was created in 2005 by Zondor if you wish to notify him. As for future nominations, Twinkle has an "AFD nomination" function that notifies the article creator for you.
- And just for the record, I'm not an administrator, just a dude who works in AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Non admin closures and RFAs
Hi. I was wondering if you would provide links to the two RfAs that crashed due to NAC issues, per your comment in AfD talk on NAC. Unsuccessful RfAs are sorted alpha rather than chrono. It always nice to know where the quicksand pits are. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The second one is still open but it's not going to pass. There of course were other concerns in these RFAs but NACs were a biggie. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- My RfA did not crash due to non admin closures. Thats an older one. Synergy 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
AfDs
7 days = 7 X 24 hours. Please do not close them early, not even half a day early, unless you are going to explicitly close speedy or snow, and it meets the speedy or snow criterion. (eg. Trey Hearne among others). I know its tempting to get in before others do :). DGG (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied in the AFD talk thread on this issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. If there is a next time, I will try to make it more clear how bad the WP:NPOV issue is, as the only editors to the article are Blockland users, and have been bad-mouthing the AFD all over their forum]. The only editor that did not post on the thread bad mouthing Wikipedia was the admin User:Stifle. Thanks once again, and will do.--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just read that forum post and the only thing I can say is "$MESSIAH_OF_YOUR_CHOICE on a bicycle". Are all gamers major dicks?. Also, just for the record, I'm not an administrator, just a guy who does a lot of AFD stuff :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 26April 2009 (UTC)
Are all gamers major dicks? I think just maybe. Thanks for all your hard work. It is appreciated.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Hey Ron, just noticed the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page. I only skimmed through it briefly, but I did watchlist it and will definitely contribute to the talk page in the future. Just wanted to say before I left though, that it's a great idea! Good Job! I'll be in and out the rest of this week, and gone most of the first couple weeks of May, but I look forward to following up on this new proposal. Great Work, and talk to ya soon. — Ched : ? 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the compliment but I just proposed the idea. Xeno was the one who put all the work into it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Stephen A. Unger
Re, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Unger
I don't think that your decision to close this AfD as a non-admin closure was appropriate, because apart from the nomination itself, only one single 'keep' was registered.
WP:HEY is an essay, not policy, and it addresses the concerns of the nominator being addressed, not those of someone coming along to close the AfD. As nominator, my concerns were not addressed.
Please reconsider the non-admin closure; I'd be grateful for some elaboration on this. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it because it had been open for half a month with only you arguing for deletion. The first 2 comments before the relist didn't bold "keep" or "delete" but one was leaning toward keeping and the other deleting. I felt that the improvements made by Monnaliza and the last "keep" comment by Cunard listing some sources slightly pushed the article to the "keep" side of the fence. However, I'll ask an administrator to review my close and if he feels it needs further discussion, I'll reopen the discussion myself and relist it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. Chzz ► 10:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Article opened but not relisted?
Hi Ron,
You have reopened Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_A._Unger but I'm not seeing it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Living_people page. Is it listed somewhere else? Thanks! Monnaliza (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to re-categorize it when I reopened it. However, it's just been re-closed as "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually did use Twinkle, i can't say why it didnt add the tag. As for the afd. it needs relisting, the result is certainly not keep, there is no consensus as there are no valid arguments in the afd. All closing require an explaination, not just for clarifity but it also helps the closer to recognise the valid points made. --neon white talk 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it because it had been open for 8 days with only you arguing for deletion. However, I reopened it and tagged the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, i think it needs alot more discussion. I havent been able to find anymore significant coverage other than allmusic. --neon white talk 09:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Matthew Granahan
I noticed you were attempting to delete Granimal's Wikipedia article. I will attempt to be polite in responding but I must tell you that I can't understand where you are coming from or what your agenda is. Granimal's company, American Combat Association, has done more for catch wrestling than any other company in recent history. They actually put on live events which no one else is currently doing. In addition Granimal and Erik Paulson's book is coming out shortly and promises to be the most comprehensive detailed book ever written on wrestling. Granimal is also working with Roddy Piper and Red Line Films on a new television series. I'm a fan of the ACA and I'm not sure who you're working with or what your agenda is in attempting to delete his article or if you even know anything about our industry but understand that he is an important figure in the industry and one of the last links to carny style catch as catch can wrestling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey gino (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did not nominate this this article for deletion nor !vote "delete" in the AFD. The only thing I did was add it to the list of "wrestling" related deletion discussions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, just so you know, in AFDs like that there generally aern't comments because no one felt like saying "me too". It's almost like I get punished for writing good nominations... if I'd made a poor nomination like "delete - not notable" people would participate. But if you say everything worth saying in the nomination... sadly, it can end up with a non-notable article being kept around. This should have been relisted or deleted. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I've actually twice made a proposal that AFD nominations with sound rationales but no comments be treated as expired prods. Last proposal here. Both times the proposal was rejected. Therefore, at this time, articles can't be deleted at AFD without a consensus no matter how sound and logical the rationale is. As far as relisting goes, I would have relisted this a second time if AFD was still 5 days but now a second relist keeps the discussion open for almost half a month. Therefore, I felt that the best thing to do in these cases is to close "no consensus with no prejudice against a speedy renomination". That way, the original nominator is not barred from immediately nominating it again if he wishes. You can choose to renominate it now (though I'd wait for an hour until 0:00GMT so it gets posted to a fresh log) or if you wish, I'll revert my close and relist it.
- BTW keep making sound rationales when nominating, I've seen my share of bad ones. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I already relisted it, and I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. While people are always going to reflexively object to a proposal like the one you mentioned, in the past, admins often closed these no-participation AFDs as deletes, and I can't recall them ever getting overturned at DRV, or even taken to DRV. I honestly think it would be best just to leave an admin to close these or relist again... it seems like a bad idea to keep an article when no one provided a reason for keeping it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(Joshcrutchley (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)) Help If someone can help me inprove the artical on Josh Crutchley, would be much gratefull. Only getting the hang on wikiapedia. Any assistance on improving the Josh Crutchley Artical would be Gratefull. Thanks
Deletion of article about Peter Deyell
ResolvedThis is regarding the recently deleted article about Peter Deyell. I am the author, and would like to appeal the decision to delete it. I was not aware, until very late, that the article had been nominated for deletion. I was in the process of writing a rebuttal, but the article was removed before I could post my comments.
Before I offer my comments, I would first like to apologize if I am not following the proper procedure. However, Wikipedia's instructions for appealing a deletion are so complicated as to be virtually impossible to understand. Instead of offering clear links for the posting of comments, each link seems to lead to more instruction, which lead to more instructions, which lead nowhere.
Now for my rebuttal of the decision to delete the article about Peter Deyell...
As I recall, the original deletion-nominator complained that the article consisted of "Self-posted puffery." The article was not self-posted. As I said earlier, I wrote it. Yes, I am an associate of Peter Deyell, but he did not write his own article.
The writer complains that it's "surprising he (Deyell) seems to have no reputation beyond this Wikipedia entry." Since when is being a household name a prerequisite to being on Wikipedia? No, you will not see Mr. Deyell on the cover of The National Enquirer or People Magazine, but he is nevertheless well-known and active within the motion picture industry. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask members of the Directors Guild of America, including individuals such as Steven Spielberg, Arthur Hiller (LOVE STORY), Gene Reynolds (MASH creator) and many more. Mr. Deyell serves on the DGA's Special Projects Committee, which is comprised of a handful of directors and was chaired, until his death, by acclaimed director Robert Wise. Mr. Deyell was also a charter founder of the DGA's Artists Rights Foundation, which is now part of Martin Scorsese's The Film Foundation. Additionally, he is a member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, as a director, not an actor, and served the Academy on the Directors & Choreographers Peer Group Executive Committee.
Mr. Deyell has a diverse background in many aspects of the industry, which is part of what makes him a rarity in Hollywood. Unlike most industry professionals, he is not limited to one or two specialities. As for the writer's assertion that some of Mr. Deyell's credits don't "check out," I suppose it depends on where one is checking. Although IMDB is a good source of information regarding film and television credits, it is by no means the be-all and end-all. IMDB does not list commercial or music video credits, and film and TV series credits are often missing. Elaine May's film "Not Enough Rope" is not on IMDB because it was not released to the general public, for complicated reasons that had nothing to do with Peter Deyell. However, the fact remains that it was his first feature-length film as a director. That is mentioned only as a matter of record, as is all of the other information in the article.
The writer claims that an Amazon search provides "no documentation of (Deyell's) career." I was not aware that Amazon's purpose is to "document" people's careers. Finally, the writer opines that Deyell "looks like a child actor who ended up in the Coast Guard..." Mr. Deyell's biography does not say that he was in the Coast Guard. It says that he was in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. I don't mean to nit-pick, but that is, in my opinion, what the writer of the original complaint about Mr. Deyell's biography is doing. Many articles on Wikipedia contain details for which no specific documentation is provided in the article, itself, even though such references are available. Such is the case with Mr. Deyell's biography, although the article does contain links to several external sources of information, as well as the titles of two motion picture industry books in which he is discussed.
Mr. Deyell is a respected professional in the industry. Certain individual, relatively minor achievements are included in his biography as a matter of record, not because they are, by themselves, special. Taken as a whole, however, Mr. Deyell has had a remarkable and diverse career, as should be evident to anyone who reads his bio in its entirety. He was, for example, the youngest vice president of production in motion picture history at Cinevest International, one of several production companies at General Service Studios, and was the artistic director of Center Stage Theatre in Los Angeles.
I believe that Peter Deyell is Wiki-worthy, and I urge you not to delete his biography. There are other articles on Wikipedia about individuals who have accomplished far less.
Frdndrsn (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: AfD
Agreed fully. Perhaps we should initiate a discussion at WT:AFD? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Your non-admin closure of Lunarcrete
I noticed you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunarcrete as keep. You might not have read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure so I'll quote from there:
AfD
After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days it is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and non-admins may consider closing a discussion on that page which is a unanimous or nearly unanimous keep. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate. Otherwise, non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion, and allow an administrator to take the decision.
Speedy keep was not applicable there, as the concerns raised by the first two !voters are still valid. The AfD hasn't run its full course of 7 days, Wikipedia:Speedy Keep does not apply, nor does WP:CSD.
I'm not going to contest the deletion, however I'd like to ask you to stick to absolutely non-controversial AfDs when you perform non-admin closures. Thank you. Antivenin 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I have read that essay. The part about AFD/old was a recent addition. It's common practice for closers, admin or otherwise, to close discussions on the 7 day old log and they should be able to do so without worrying about the exact second it was closed. If you look at some of the closes done by your admin coach you will see that not all his closes ran the full 168 hours. However, it is a good idea to start at the bottom of the log because that's where the oldest and the relisted debates will be. Here's a recent discussion on this issue.
- The article in question had undergone significant improvement by Uncle G sense it was nominated. Compare the current version with the version that was nominated. There were no "delete" !votes after this revision and IMO there was a clear consensus to "keep" the improved version. See WP:HEY --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't the article itself, rather the subject of the article that Drawn Some (talk · contribs) and JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) were referring to in the first two !votes. Drawn Some's argument stated "lunarcrete" was a neologism and should be covered here, and James's !vote stated that a hypothetical substance is close to violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL.
- I didn't see the concerns raised above by the two users answered in your closing statement. Nor were they answered by the article rewrite. (I acknowledge, the new article is more comprehensive than the older version)
- As for the closes done by my admin coach, I don't see how that's relevant to our conversation here at all. My emphasis is not on the time a discussion runs, rather the fact that the concerns in the !delete statements were not answered.
- The part of the essay you quoted and your mention of "speedy keep not being applicable" led me to believe that you had an issue with the fact that the discussion hadn't ran the full 168 hours, therefore I was just trying to point out that many of the discussions closed are also a bit early.
- The "neologism" issue was addressed by Uncle G. The term wasn't "recently coined". I will concede that the WP:CRYSTAL point might not have been addressed but JamesWatson said it came "close" to violating WP:CRYSTAL, not that it did. Also, neither of them had any comments on the revised version of the article. All of the !votes after that were "keep". Regardless of who closed it, I don't think that AFD could have been closed "delete" and nobody was suggesting "merge" or "redirect". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I use a script to close AFDs and it automatically links to that essay when used by a non admin. However, I do point it out to anybody who asks me about closing AFDs as it's good advise for anybody who is not familiar with the AFD process. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Non admin closure
I've noticed you've done a lot of relisting and [maybe] some non-admin closures. What is the technical procedure for doing this? I have this AfD in mind specifically (for merging). Shadowjams (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Heads Up
Your edit history with DremGuy are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Christopher William
How is putting out your own record, on a record label you started, which has only ever put out one record, considered being signed to a notable record label? How is the label notable? Did you even check the article for the record label? Ridernyc (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point so I restored the tag. I also reported User:Gcrec to WP:UAA as a promotional username. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would create an article about the 2009-2010 United States network television schedule for weekdays because I want to know what daytime television shows are on the weekday schedule for the 2009-2010 season. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Meraloma Club deletion
The Meraloma club page had several links which attested to notability. If this "amateur" sports club is not notable then there are now many thousands of atheltic teams and clubs listed at Wiki who do not qualify as notable. Why the inequity and what's to be done with them now.
e.g. [3]
AND [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meraloma (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I did not delete this page. It was deleted by User:Nja247 as a result of a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meraloma Club (2nd nomination). This also means that the recent recreation, Meraloma club, is likely to be deleted as well. I've already informed User:Nja247 of your objection to the deletion. After discussing it with him, your next option is to challenge the result of the discussion at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly as Ron stated above, ie there was clearly a consensus to delete and you could take on to review, but honestly unless every single issue has been fully resolved it is unlikely to change the result. Nja247 06:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
re This discussion on WT:AFD may interest you
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Verdurian
You went beyond what non-admins are meant to do in closing deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:NAC#Appropriate closures. Non-admins are only supposed to close unanimous or near unanimous discussions. I think a merge to Zompist.com would have been the best result. Fences&Windows 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing keeping that from being done. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Follow up. Yes I have read that essay and I interpret it as being editor's arguing for "delete" vs editors not arguing for delete. With your withdrawn nomination, that left 2 "delete" arguments vs 12 "keep" or "do something else" arguments. It was unlikely that an admin would be pushing a "delete" button. All the other options would involve keeping the article "as is" or as a redirect with or without content merged into another article. I felt the arguments for redirecting to Zompist.com were compelling but an outright "keep" close would have been equally valid. There is nothing keeping you or anybody else from merging some of the content to Zompist.com.
- The only thing a "merge" close would mean is a big purple tag on the page and perhaps another AFD if the merge wasn't done. An administrator wouldn't be able to enforce a merge close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will do that, but I still think you should refrain from closing deletion discussions against the guidelines. As a non-admin, it's not your judgement to make. Fences&Windows 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ron, I see you closed this too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Issue. "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Why not put yourself up for adminship? Fences&Windows 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I closed this one too. In both cases the articles were listed for 2 weeks with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion and as you pointed out in both discussions, the nominations were weak. I did this as an alternative to relisting these debates a second time. These aren't normal "no consensus" closes where a whole bunch of editors with differing opinions participate. Those are "contentious" and I avoid those. After 2 weeks there was no solid rationale for deletion but in the case of Hot Issue, I didn't feel comfortable saying "keep" with just your 1 comment even though it refuted the nominator's rationale. Another reason I closed both of these is I'm getting tired of seeing ignored AFDs relisted over and over again, especially those with weak rationales. An even more extreme example is this AFD, open for 24 days and relisted 3 times. That's just ridiculous.
- The only thing a "merge" close would mean is a big purple tag on the page and perhaps another AFD if the merge wasn't done. An administrator wouldn't be able to enforce a merge close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as being an admin, judging by how other recent RFAs are going, my lack of non automated article work would make any RFA for me DOA. I'm not ready to be thrown under that bus yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll shut up about it now! I had thought it was policy, but WP:DELPRO is actually only a guideline, and common sense can prevail. It's weird how some AfDs get so much attention, and others get left without any discussion. It is a bit odd how admins are seen to need to be content providers, when that has little to do with what admins actually do. I understand not wanting to give a rabid deletionist the tools, but a hard working behind-the-scenes editor like yourself should be given a chance. Fences&Windows 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as being an admin, judging by how other recent RFAs are going, my lack of non automated article work would make any RFA for me DOA. I'm not ready to be thrown under that bus yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A further note on non admin closures. The only "guideline" on that is here which says Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results which somewhat contradicts the "close calls" clause stated later. Once a non admin becomes familiar with deletion policy and gains experience closing AFDs, I see no problem with them closing discussions that aren't 100% slam dunks. The often quoted (almost as if it were "policy") WP:NAC is an "essay". In other words, it's "advice" and it's damn good advice for anybody inexperienced with closing AFDs but I disagree with some of the later additions to that essay. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
JUPITER trial
Thanks for informing me on the AFD. I agree that if everyone voted against me, it should be kept. When I discovered that I wrote a very similar article in the past I felt it was only right that I nominated that article for deletion too. We'll see. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)