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.
I'm afraid I have to decline this one. While the
article in question could be better written and better sourced, I've done a google search and come to the conclusion that the subject meets our
general notability guidelines. Two sources in particular are
this and
this. Both represent "significant coverage in reliable sources". If I saw this article at
AFD I would !vote keep. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
12:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron, it's time again for someone to suggest you'd be a good admin. Please consider taking up the mop. I understand your reservations, but think the project would be better with you holding the mop. Heck, you already mop up enough stuff around here.
Hobit (
talk)
19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Your close of this AFD is exactly why non-admins shouldn't close them. Closes are supposed to be on the strength of the arguments, not a vote count. That there are no other delete comments is not relevant. I suggest that you stop closing AFDs until you actually understand the AFD process.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If helps Otto, I'm an administrator, and I support Ritzman's AFD close. There was no other way this could have possibly resulted in a deletion. –
MuZemike23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand the nominator's frustration but it was a "low risk" article (ie not a
BLP) with no "delete" !votes. If an admin closed it "delete" we would be at DRV overtuning it. I recently started a
thread at the village pump about this very issue. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I will also note that Otto's every argument was premised on an encyclopedic ignorance of filk music and the conventions and traditions thereof. A very solid close. --
Orange Mike |
Talk19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Rev Keith Garner's Wikipedia page
Ron, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't want to cause difficulties. I have endeavoured to edit the page ... I don't want to be deleted as many friends/colleagues access Wikipedia when I have been preaching. I am happy to re-write it if necessary ... any advice you could give me would be appreciated. Warmly, Keith Garner —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WorthingtonJones (
talk •
contribs)
02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
On Monday I was told that the page had been relisted for seven days. After four days, it has been deleted. I think Wikipedia has to understand what is meant by consensus. Will someone please make contact with me. Keith Garner. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WorthingtonJones (
talk •
contribs)
The
AFD in question was closed by
Cirt so he's the one you need to discuss this with. After that, if you still wish to challenge the decision, then you can
have it reviewed. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UT
I understand it was not you. You will follow the fact that in my role I cant enter into a protracted conversation with someone who has not followed the 7 day rule. I have a conflict( i know myself), my wife does( she knows me) and immediately we find someone who does not it is deleted. A strange practice.how would I contact this person anyway? Keith —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WorthingtonJones (
talk •
contribs)
Given up - cant see how i can communicate with cirt and as he or she is regularly deleting I dont think that a rethink is going to occur. Thanks for your help - some simpler notes for beginners are required about how to send comments. Frustrated but not at you. all the best.
I noticed that you used check engine lights as an analogy for talkpage warnings on ANI. Specifically you stated that continuing to drive a vehicle after the check engine light has come on would be a bad idea. I don't know what your locale is, but in the US, many states once required that vehicles undergo emissions testing on a regular basis. That requirement has generally been dropped, as automakers have included control systems that will turn on the check engine light if the control system senses that the vehicle's emissions are less than optimal. (often this is because sensors are dirty, not because there's actually a problem) This results in many people ignoring their check engine lights. Therefore, I think it would be wise to find a better analogy. Regards,
RadManCF☢open frequency21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the close but here's my rationale for it. AFD primary mission is to determine whether or not an administrator should hit a delete button and it was obvious that that was not going to happen. I don't like to close as "merge" unless the consensus for it is overwhelming and I didn't see that it was. I don't just count the number of "keep" vs the number of "merges". I only close as merge if all, or nearly all !voters say "merge" and are in agreement for a target and in this one, 2 different targets were suggested. IMHO "keep" was the most logical close. Also consider that a "keep" close does not stop a merge from being done anyway. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My opinion too. I admin-overturned
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.Q. Hi to a "merge". Plotty barely notable fiction-related articles often have a parent article where an AfDed article could be merged easily, so better not close as "keep" if consensus is to not keep the article as a stand-alone article. –
sgeurekat•
c08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You relisted this AfD once and then closed it as "No consensus" despite there only being a single vote! This is not an appropriate non-admin closure. I looked through your contributions and I see that you are closing hundreds of AfD's as non-admin closures. This is inappropriate. Please stop immediately. I have reverted your close of this AfD and I will be reviewing some of your other recent ones to ensure that you are not acting inappropriately anywhere else. Please read closely:
Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures.
SnottyWongyak01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, per
WP:RELIST, that was a good close by Ron. I don't agree with the guideline, but Ron was following the letter of it, which should be perfectly fine in my book. Ron has been closing many AFDs for over a year now, and I have always seen him do excellent work. I also don't think your rollback of his closure was appropriate; I am sure that he would have been perfectly happy to self-revert if you asked politely. NW(
Talk)01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on
WP:ANI regarding his non-admin closures. If he wants to close a lot of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. I have never seen an AfD that was only relisted once get closed as "No consensus" by an admin. They are always relisted two or three times before something like that would happen. Whether or not it was appropriate per
WP:RELIST is debatable, it's not an open and shut case. Therefore, it's not uncontroversial and should not be getting closed by a non-admin.
SnottyWongsqueal02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ron, sorry for all of the trouble. I can see that most of your closures are good. However, I think you should really reconsider all of the No Consensus closes that you're doing on AfD's with one relist. They truly are unproductive. There is no difference between relisting it a second time, and closing it without prejudice to an instant renomination. In both cases, it's going to get relisted. By closing it prematurely, you're just wasting the nominator's time, and wasting the time of anyone who might have !voted already. Thanks.
SnottyWongexpress04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time with arguments on whether NACs are allowed or not, why don't we just get rid of the problem by making you an admin?
T. Canens (
talk)
07:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I also second the barnstar. You're doing a fine job closing the most non-contentious AFDs (at least those that are non-contentious in most editors' views). –
MuZemike19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to close AfDs frequently please apply for adminship, or limit yourself to only those AfDs which are clear keeps or deletes, or to relisting. Thanks, Verbalchat17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to take a wild guess that the close you are concerned about is the
Arabs For Israel AFD which I initially closed as "keep" and then reverted. I stand by my close as there were no arguments for deletion except the nom and it was obvious that no delete buttons were going to be hit. As long as AFD is called "articles for deletion", "delete vs don't delete" will be the primary issue. Also, a "keep" close doesn't prevent someone from being bold and merging that article anyway and even if it was closed as "merge", there would be no way of enforcing it if the article's regular editors were dead set on keeping it as a standalone article. In most cases a "merge" close is a "keep" close with a big purple tag on the article.
That being said, I have closed as "merge" before but only if the consensus for it is overwhelming and it wasn't in this AFD. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not any one particular AfD that I am concerned about. I have in the past had to deal with problems where non-admins have caused a lot of drama with incorrect closes. Non admins should stick to simple, procedural closes - or apply for adminship. Please desist. Thanks, Verbalchat09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Troutsmack
The Wet Trout Award
I,
Elektrik Shoos (
talk), have the honor of presenting you the Wet Trout Award for for relisting an AFD for a second time because it's a BLP, when the subject in question has been dead for three years (and is clearly stated in the article).
On the other hand, one never knows about Ewings.
Sometimes they aren't as dead as they seem. On that note: I was reading a comment of yours at Deletion Review just now, and my first thought was "Well, if even Ron Ritzman doesn't think it should be re-listed at AFD …". ☺
Uncle G (
talk)
01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, I would rather be relisting a lot less and I don't like relisting twice. Until recently, I was closing non-blp AFDs as "no consensus" after 2 weeks until I got dragged to ANI for it. Even though what I was doing was supported by
WP:RELIST and by several other admins, I decided to err on the side of not making unnecessary drama.
In the case of the "media panic" AFD, it wasn't a BLP or other "high risk" article so after 2 weeks "no consensus" was the right call. On the Ewing AFD, the only thing I can say is that I had a big "stupid sandwich" for lunch. (but who knows, Robert Ewing III might turn up alive in someone's shower) --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
01:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
C'mon, just do it already
As I've just stated over at
WP:DELPRO, I think you are doing a fine job despite what Snotty and Verbal seem to think. That being said, you really do seem like a prime candidate for adminship, you've got users lined up wanting to nominate you, and it would get rid of this particular (non-)issue. C'mon Ron, throw that hat in the ring.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to say this once...
...because I hate repeating myself. I'm sick and tired-sick and tired, I tell ya!- of all these discussions about non-admin AFD closures, and hereby declare that the only way to stop them is to nominate you for administratorship. The time has come to drag the horse- that's you- to RFA and make him drink.
Courcelles (
talk)
00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat my support, for what it's worth. Hell, you seem to have at least a half-dozen experienced editors lined up who'd happily nominate you; I'm one of 'em. That speaks to the job you're doing. The occasional complaint is going to happen.
Shimeru02:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I had no idea the deletion regarding "Mark Prator" had taken place, and had no venue with which to argue.
I'm not terribly savvy in this world, but I would like you to reconsider your deletion request. I have had a long career in this business as a sideman and played a role in many albums and projects as the guy behind the scenes that plays a vital role. When a drummer can't do the gig, I get called in. That is my specific expertise. Also, I excel as an engineer/producer, logging many projects. I'm not sure how I would qualify for deletion in the first place, as every line item on the page is verifiable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.252.210.178 (
talk)
15:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was never the original author of the page, heneforth, it does not qualify as an autobiographical page. I only edited errors. I did not know the page existed, until I was made aware of it. I only made corrections after the fact. This should be an undeletion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.252.210.178 (
talk)
15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you relisted this one--the nominator said he was "happy to withdraw" the nomination, there were no other delete !votes, and since it's a high school the normal criteria applied to schools dictate a keep. Am I missing something? Thanks, --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for that. I sometimes miss those if they are sandwiched between 2 other comments. I deserve a big...
An unsourced BLP with such potential is one of the few which actually merits a relisting... specially when only the nominator continues to push for deletion over improving. Tell you what... If rather than do a close, you instead relist, I'll personally improve it when I get home later this evening... and you know I can and will, if I say I can and will. But if it gets incubated before I get home, trust that it will be improved and back in mainspace within days. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I've already relisted this twice and
WP:RELIST strongly discourages third relists. I agree with your argument but there isn't enough participation for a keep close so it's a clear "no consensus". The only reason I recommended incubation was because the article is a BLP. If it were an article on a Pokemon I would have closed it. Whether the article is sourced in mainspace or in the incubator doesn't matter. A sourced BLP improves the encyclopedia. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I know... and as you may realize, I only came into the discussion after the second relist (I can't be eveywhere at once... sigh). But as there is support for "incubate until sourced", and as stated above, even if it is incubated before I get home, I can source it when I do get home and request a move from incubation back to mainspace, as issues will then be addressed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You relisted this - looks like an editor's already been bold and merged it to the main article, which is a reasonable move I suppose.
Black Kite (t)(c)00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. By the time I finished with this evening's closable log with 135 AFDs, I checked those out and see that you have already closed them. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Clipping path service
Unfortunately,The article clipping path service has been redirected to
clipping path according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the
clipping path article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration.
Md Saiful Alam (
talk)
03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you make the Manny Machado page a redirect when it was a consensous to keep it over redirecting it to the Orioles Minor League players?
-- Ice (
talk)
05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes the consensus was "keep" as I stated in my closing statement. (and on the
talk page closure tag) The redirect was editorial decision on my part which any editor is free to revert. It was simply a concession to those with concerns that he hasn't played any major league games yet which is likely to change in the next few days. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to harass, because I know you get a lot of suggestions to throw your hat into the ring, but you'd have my strong support as well if you ever decide to run. --
j⚛e deckertalk04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, since this is the second time someone has created this page, I'll give this some serious thought and if I decide to jump in front of this bus, it will be this weekend when I will have the time to answer the 100 or so questions that are likely to be thrown at me. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I had already evaluated that AFD and decided not to close it and 99.6.13.199s comment about "removing this box" did jump up and bite me. I read it as him removing the AFD tag from the article, not closing the AFD. I did look to make sure the tag was still there. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a good save and a decent close. Courcelles got to it some moments after I tagged your page. Thanks for checking though. The reason I was concerned was the IP was showing the same newbie angst that hits rank newcomers when their efforts are sent to AFD. Earlier, her had blanked the whole article in despair and frustration. Hopefully, he'll see that patience and civility are usually rewarded. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
And a second one that I believe is ready for return to mainspace is
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Marine Story. It was incubated because its release was imminent. Well... it got out, is winning awards, and has received a nice mount of press.
User: Action grrl did some work on it until last July and it semed to then be forgotten. So I got to it, did some neccessary cleanup, added several more cites and a couple more decent reviews. Send it back to mainspace too? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.05:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ron Ritzman. I noticed you created a
Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that
request might be. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that
RfA, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY(TALK)06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be a challenge to come up with my usual questions. I'd have to find some really difficult ones for you. ☺ Hmmm. Maybe I'll pick CFD or FFD instead …
Uncle G (
talk)
00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If I do go through with this and if by some miracle I pass, I plan on sticking to the areas where I have the most experience (at least at first). That being AFD and some speedy deletions. I also plan on working at
WP:REFUND. However, I guess I should expect some questions outside my "comfort zone". --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point it's a no consensus close. And you're right that I haven't boned up on our disambig guidelines. However, if somebody actually wrote those two redlinked articles suggested by the delete !voter (and assuming they were themselves more then dicdefs) then
Rebasing could be turned into a good disambig page. (perhaps with a move to
Rebase) --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
01:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's more the case that we already know what you'd do. You've already done it. ☺ I'd have to find discussions that you haven't touched yet.
I'm surprised you haven't asked me how I would close
this one. It's tougher then it looks because it's a BLP and therefore IMHO a candidate for "admin's discretion". (if it were about a Pokemon it would be a keep) I would say that since there is a plausible redirect target then do that. It can always be restored if someone finds independent sources "about" the guy, not just his work. However, there's no doubt that an admin closing it that way will be taking his lumps at DRV. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't picked any discussions yet. You have to accept the nomination before you get my question. ☺ What I pick for such questions is from whatever is open at the time. And I still haven't ruled out throwing something from RFD at you, just to keep you awake. ☺ I have seen one that is particularly à la mode, and indeed relevant to what you just wrote.
Uncle G (
talk)
00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ron, I would like to encourage you to accept. I've seen your NAC closes and they look good to me, so baring something that pops up from the woodwork, I'll support. I thought you done waz a mop handler at one point. BTW, check out my argument on the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebasing example Uncle G didn't give. —
Becksguy (
talk)
05:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, !@#$%^&* you for being nom'd already (well, !$%&* Triona and Tim Song, and no personal attacks meant to anyone :P). I was going to nom you a few minutes ago after marveling at your going through all the old AfDs already and saving me and everyone else some time relisting and such. You will be such a help at AfD if when you get the tools. —
fetch·comms02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dazzling headlights coming close
I'm not going to point you directly at it. That would defeat the object. But you've missed something, something that I hoped you would see straightaway, and it's a fairly large something that has torpedoed other people's candidacies. Please take note of what I wrote at
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
Uncle G (
talk)
00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Attempted some exhaustive statistical and factor analysis of past ivoting data in rfas. Provides definitive empirical evidence at the second of this posting that beyond this moment of time, the probability of your passing the rfa is equal to (not 'close to', but 'equal to') 100%. Allow me the liberty of being the first one to statistically congratulate you on your new role. Wikipedia needs editors like you and I'm thankful that a statistically significant majority of our community has reposed our faith in you.
203.88.8.2 (
talk)
03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats Ron :) Aw heck why not, I did with Wifione so...
Ron Ritzman has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,
Since you don' need no steenkin' badges, I 'spose I'll have to overcome my shyness (!) and drop by here to say congratulations! If you ever need help with XfD closes, give me a ... no. I am definitely not going to have the audacity to suggest that. I'll be looking to you for advice!
TFOWR12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I'm definitely going to need a little help as now I'm "eligible" to to close AFDs that I previously wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole. On the "badges" thing, I have decided that I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm an admin but I'm not going to HONK about it either. Adding myself to the trout slapping category and making sure it's the last one listed is as far as I will go. Chances are that somebody coming to my talk page to question/correct me about an edit I made is a better editor then me and I don't want him to feel intimidated or reluctant to correct me because I'm an administrator. If somebody comes here to question an admin action then he already knows. In short, I'm only going to break out the mop and bucket if there's something to clean. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a fantastic answer, and in my view entirely justifies my support. I feel spectacularly unqualified to help, but if I can do please shout.
TFOWR19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that's one way to cut down on non-admin closures at AFD. Congrats from me too. When you've got to the stage of finding out what a faff it is to hunt for the appropriate block message each time you block someone, have a look at the scripts in my monobook - you may find some stuff there worth cribbing. ϢereSpielChequers13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
King of Hearts has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{
subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{
subst:munch}}!
Thanks, and just for the record I did figure that your second to last edit to the RFA was some kind of glitch and not "vandalism" (that would have been the ultimate oppose) because you were replying to the other opposers. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
...For passing your RfA! I've seen you around town, and you are truly deserved the mop. Congratulations again. Have fun deleting the
Main Page and
blocking Jimbo and good luck! MJ9400:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed it. I don't check my email that often because I rarely use email anymore. However, I now suspect that more editors will be sending me email then then they previously did so perhaps I now need a dedicated account for it. Reply pending. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
deleted "Dillon Callaway" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
My article did in fact indicate importance and significance. I am writing you in grievance. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and if there are administrators that delete history from the web, then wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.1.139.211 (
talk)
18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Did I come at a bad time to offer my congratulations? Hmmm... would you please do me a favor Ron Ritzman? If I ever go insane enough to run for admin, please slap me with a trout. :-) —
UncleDouggie (
talk)
00:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I expected this would happen sooner or later though I've had worse that that shoveled at me in my usenet days. In any case since MQS has already responded to him, I'll remove it. I don't frame flames. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that would be needed for obvious cases and I'd lose the wikilink to
unanimous. It might be viewed by some as "pointy". However, since you usually restore and relist your "one !vote" deletes (ie
P is for Panda) on request you might consider saying "will restore and relist on request" in your closes on these. That might be a benefit to those who like to go running to DRV without asking you first.
I've decided that I'm not going to do that unless there is a consensus for "soft delete" like was suggested at the relisting straw pole. I like to see at least 2 !voters agree with the nom for any kind of (hard) delete close unless there are BLP issues, the article is unverifiable, or is a speedy candidate. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and helpful suggestions. :) I especially like your last part, about the two users in agreement, that might be a good idea going forward. -- Cirt (
talk)
03:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think cases like these are at the administrator's discretion. If the nominator and the delete !voter are both sounding reasonable, and if the closing administrator can verify the existence of their concerns, I think a delete close is fine. I especially like the soft delete concept (different from
Wikipedia:Soft deletion), where the closing administrator is willing to restore the article if a rational restore request is made.
Arbitrarily0(
talk)22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand fully. I had gone through this puppet's AFD nominations and comments only back (so far) to September 14... and doubtless there are many more to look at. So if I find other of his nominations that were deleted because of numerous "per nom", I'll bring them to your attention for a possible re-opening and re-listing. And more, if I find others that were deleted based upon his being the sole delete !vote, I'll be back faster. For example, at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben 10 Ultimate Alien: Fame his was the only !vote... past the noinator's... and after asking the closer to relist, and then myself offering an opinion, the nominator chose to withdraw the nomination basd upon my reasoning. As I dig further back into histories and if I find other such examples... they may need to be re-examined as well. Damned puppets. And thanks. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you deleted the article, please cut and paste the content on my talk page. I spent hours on that and I can move it to Wikinews.
69.3.72.249 (
talk)
21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You recently closed
this debate as "delete". However, the article was re-created today (I have already tagged it
CSD G4). The article has previous record of being re-created immediately after deletion (through CSD or XfD) - see
log . Is it possible to include it under
Special:ProtectedTitles?
The topic has the coverage that exceeds the GNG and the article was nominated for deletion within hours of having been created and and while it was still and obviously being edited by its author. My sense is that there was either poor BEFORE, and/or a
lack of understanding of notability guidelines GNG and NF. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Article has been markedly improved since the nomination and the sole delete vote were made.
[7] And the nominator himself acknowledges the improvements and requests a closure.
[8]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look this over and if I do punch it, it will be under the same conditions for which I punched
Vanthaan Vendraan. Also, and please don't take this the wrong way, I do occasionally make
WP:SNOW closes and I do sometimes punch AFDs when the nom withdraws but there's a "per nom" delete !vote or 2 per
WP:IAR because there's no point in leaving an AFD open for the sake of process if it's all but obvious that the article isn't going to be deleted. However, I need to come across these on my own and make my own independent judgment on whether or not they can be closed early per
WP:SNOW. I often do go through the logs for the previous 7 days looking for relisted debates, withdrawn nominations, etc. that can be closed so it's likely that I'll eventually find these. However if I don't and/or don't think it's a candidate for
WP:SNOW (and some other admin doesn't punch it) then there's little harm in it being open the full 7 days. If an AFD clearly meets one of the criteria listed at
WP:SK then I'll be happy close these on request. (of course you can also close these if you wish) --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... and yes, I can wait... as the article in question is in no danger of deletion. And toward your last sentence, I could/would never close an AFD in which I opined... except against my own interest... and I opine in so many (chuckle). Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How did you get to delete ? Nobody gave any comment after my request for help ? If the only way to repair the article is to userfy it, then please give me an opportunity to do it. I would like the help of a wiki editor. --
Maslowsneeds (
talk)
01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I closed it as "delete" because, after 20 days, that was the consensus. However, because I was thinking of userfying it anyway, I've went ahead and done so
here. If you can fix it so it addresses the concerns of those who commented at the AFD, then you are welcome to take the draft to
deletion review. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I O.K., thanks. I want to make it a good article, so I will continue to do my best. i just hope you realise that this article attracted puppet accounts, who voted to delete it. So, vandalism was demonstrated against the article. I don't know what happened to the archive of AfD comments, but I hope that that history is considered after I enter amendments to the artlcle and then ask for help to return it to the main wikipedia space. Thanks for your help. --
Maslowsneeds (
talk)
11:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to
Are You The Cow Of Pain?s !vote, trust me, that was the only sock and he's been doing that over numerous AFDs, not just Suzannah B. Troy's. We're still cleaning up his mess. The rest were all good faith !votes. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
11:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)