User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

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.

• Erdős–Bacon number · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [revisions]

Now that's a clever way to make a personal attack and not get blocked! :) But I must disagree that the closer is a dumbass. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• SWGEmu · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [revisions]

After attempting a Deletion Review, I was informed that I must first contest the deletion with the original administrator who approved the article's deletion. While I feel this does not allow one to voice concern in an unbiased forum, I do hope that you, Ron Ritzman, will hold enough self integrity to approach this request with objectivity.

I formally wish to contest the deletion of the article detailing SWGEmu. The grounds which were cited as reason for deletion were "lack of notability by a third-party". I must respectfully disagree with this assessment, and have uncovered at least four third-party articles establishing credibility for SWGEmu. These articles are as follows:

• CrunchGear: http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/01/making-galaxies-fun-again-an-interview-with-the-developers-of-the-star-wars-galaxies-precu-emulation-project/
• MegaGames: http://www.megagames.com/news/star-wars-galaxies-going-open-source
• CompleteBS: http://www.completebs.net/?p=149
• TenTonHammer: http://forums.tentonhammer.com/showthread.php?t=52912

Furthermore, notable Wikipedia articles also refer to SWGEmu:

• Star Wars Galaxies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies
• BerkeleyDB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_DB

Finally, there is evidence on LucasForums, a LucasArts affiliate site, that SWGEmu was undergoing consideration by Lucas Arts themselves to be absorbed. Only after the refusal of the SWGEmu team, whom wished to remain Open Source and under the community's control, did Lucas Arts rescind this offer.

• LucasForums Moderator DarthMaulUK http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2145325&postcount=3

In conjunction with the massive community user base, playable servers, and historical significance of SWGEmu, it is my opinion that there is more than enough evidence to establish SWGEmu as a notable entity, and it should certainly be included in Wikipedia.

Swgemucrush (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after 3 afds (which you can find links to underneath the title of this thread) all resulting in "delete", I'm afraid you'll have to make your case at deletion review. (where you were before was not "deletion review" but "requests for undeletion" which can't restore articles deleted by AFD in most cases). Also, it's not enough for something to simply be "popular" or "have a lot of users" to qualify for an article. It has to be reported by mainstream media or written about in books. A good informal summary can be found here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. I will do further research to try and satisfy this notability requirement, and then bring it before the deletion review process. It seems to me that the CrunchGear article should satisfy this requirement; however, it is also stated that more than a single reference must be cited. Should I interpret this as two notable sources are sufficient? --Swgemucrush (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I wanted to check in with you regarding the Mike Bloom (musician) page. I did revert the redirect and I also put up many sources and external links. After many different formatting tries I'm not positive I correctly formatted the references or the external links. I'm sorry to bother you with this, I was hoping you could perhaps show me the correct format formula (for references and external links)? The message banner (of potential deletion) on top of his page is still there too, so I feel I definitely did not satisfy a requirement, either format wise or references. Your help is most appreciated. Thank you very much. bljoe

• Mohammad Shaikh · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Dear Ron, I am writing to you about my Mohammad Shaikh page. On the deletion process page it reads that I am to come to you for permission to recreate the page because he is not notable enough due to lack of secondary sources, I believe. Would you be so kind to look at the page and tell me what I need to add to the page to get it up again? Thank you kindly!!! Your avatar is so funny on your first page. I love herMindingthequill (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much what you need to add to the page but what must exist. You need to show that there are sources (such as news articles or chapters in books) that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). A somewhat terse but accurate summary of our notability rules can be found at WP:42. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• La Carmina · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello, thank you for extending the discussion of the La Carmina article's AfD. I noticed something unusual about the nomination and was wondering if you could please review it. Strictly assuming good faith, of course, both the nominator and the two IPs that have voiced agreement with the nomination have no other history of editing on Wikipedia and lack facts to back the nomination up. I cannot help but wonder if the nomination was made as a result of poor understanding of Wikipedia's criteria on notability (one of the IPs asked "who has even heard of her?", for example). I don't have much AfD experience, and hope that this does not cross the line for the article's main contributor, but I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing the case yourself as it does not seem to be attracting any more discussion. Thank you, Feather Jonah (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to respond to this. I disregarded the 2 IP comments, not because they're IPs but because their rationales had nothing do do with any of our inclusion guidelines. I don't think that any other action is needed at this time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Infinite Computer Solutions · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [revisions]

I respect your decision to keep the Infinite Computer Solutions page on Wikipedia. What worries me is the number of public complaints filed against a new, small, Indian company. Doing a Google search with <infinite computer solutions complaints> will reveal plenty of dirty laundry and reading through the comments posted on these complaints indicate that they are truthful.

Also, if you read the comments, you will realize that the company is blackmailing their employees by asking them to submit their original documents for the recruitment process. These documents are never returned and used to blackmail employees who are trying to leave and / or do not join the company.

Moreover, the company does not pay the employees what is agreed upon at the time of joining and they force the employees to pay the employer's contribution of the mandatory government Provident Fund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muleofatlantic (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that none of this is relevant to the issue of whether or not the article should exist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the deletion of this AfD for having been created by a banned user, I didn't think that WP:CSD#G5 applied, because there were substantial edits by other editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Might be a stretch but all the !votes were "procedural" keeps and no other deletes. WP:DENY may also apply. However, I won't challenge the restore per the message at the top of my talk page as both positions are valid here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

T-integration · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] Mr. Ritzman,

Good morning. I clicked on my citation of your deletion of my article on T-Integration and the WIKI brought me here.

In your citation you claim that T-Integration is not cited in notable documentation. My claim is that it is cited in a notable documentation. The following citation is from the article that started my development of the T-Integrator. The article is in a peer reviewed journal of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Jon Michael Smith, "Recent Developments in Numerical Integration," Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, March 1974.

I have a copy of the article and will send it to you if you require.

I respectfully request that you reinstate my article in the Wikipedia.

Jon Michael Smith Jon Michael Smith (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You are free to present those sources at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Star Wars galaxy · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi, could you undelete Star Wars galaxy while keeping the redirect, just to preserve the history? You said it was an interesting article, so I would like to look at it and see if anything could be salvaged. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the AFD the history needs to stay deleted so instead I have userfied it to User:Blake/Star Wars galaxy. Just tag it with {{Db-u1}} when you're done with it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What?? There were only 5 comments, three of which were for totally deleting it, while the other two(plus yourself) thought there could have been some salvaging. That was barely consensus enough to forever delete it. I think people who want to see the history of the article should be able to if they want to. I have seen articles have their history undeleted. Could you please move this out of my userspace and back where it belongs? It may be used in a future project we were discussing, and I just wanted to see the possibility of it. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron, As per your comment, I have 7 days to make my argument for keeping the article on the wikipedia. I provided my comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Erl and also edited Thomas Erl page with latest information. Please let me know if there is something else that I need to do to ensure that the article is not marked for deletion. Thanks for your help. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Litinus · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

If you don't know the Roman and Byzantium history it is your false. Open a history book or ask a professor in any university of the world. In university of Padova in Italy there are the coat of arms of the family Litinus. You have just to ask the university of Padova. Also it is very important to let to any person in world to add information about the name of Litinus. There are many opinions about the root of the name Litinus. I have not time to give you these information right now, but it will be good for all of us to share our knowleage. I shall add the historical information about the root of the name in the article. Also for people who know the basic history of roman empire I say to them that the king had the coat of arm ( fasces ) with 12 ropes. The coat of arm of Litinus which is the the walls of the university of Padova has an arm with a fasces with 12 ropes. So Litinus must be the name of a king of Roman. That 's why wikipedia can help us. In wikipedia we shall share our knowlenge. According to the profile of the users who want to delete this article and to the history of their profile and their articles in wikipedia, the users who want to delete this article are bad communists. I am saying bad beacause a good communist respect the history and does not try to modify and change it hiding the truth, and stopping the research. In wikipedia we research the history, and we call all the people to give and share the knowlenge . We are not make critism to the sociaty and to political system. Finally if a user like me , or like the writter of an article (litinus) has to present his knowleage according to some rules of the wikipedia (copywrites etc) , then you have to communicate directly with the user and to help him to represent his articles, and you must not delete the whole article because you have different political believes from the content of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.69.33 (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be happening, but thanks for cheering me on. BTW, there's an IP right above you, but improperly formatted--care to have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was indented because IPs can't !vote in RFAs --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that. Don't see how I forgot that. Hey, can you vote a couple more times? Which reminds me: last election time, my students were so totally uninterested that the joke "vote early and often" didn't even register as a joke. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERY ADMIN IS EXPECTED TO KNOW, YOU JUST BLEW IT SON, 100 EDITORS JUST SWITCHED TO OPPOSE. Just kidding :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Phew* Drmies (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Soxman · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Ron- I awoke this morning to see that the Soxman page I spent countless hours creating was again deleted with no explanation whatsoever. I created a new article on the subject matter with references, links to prove the legitamacy of the person, etc, I also posted an arguement and contested when the speedy deletion nomination was put forward and I received no explantion in return. I'm really not sure what more I need to do here. I have links to the person's work, links to three major television programs the person has been on, a link to him on MLB.com, and links to proove his writing for the Chicago Tribune Rede Eye. Can you please offer me some level of guidance why this is takig place? The speedy deletion request told admins to at least check the links and I CANNOT understand why this would be deleted after I followed all the rules. Thanks sportsbankSportsbank (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your latest version was deleted by Malik_Shabazz and this is going to happen every time you recreate the page. If you have sources that you think demonstrate notability then you need to present them at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Soxman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sir as you were the original deleting admin, I’m notifying you as I would like your review input on this review. I feel I have complied with all of the suggestions made and issues raised by the original deletion panel. You have also provided timely, courteous responses, which I appreciate. Thank you. sportsbankSportsbank (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Ritzman- I thank you for your help with my Soxman article and notice that unlike many other articles on the deltion review page, my Soxman article has merely been "closed." with no further explanation nor anyone stating that they have reviewed the new article I submitted in May. Can you please tell me why no one has at least reviewed the new article with citations and links to tell me why this is still not considered verifiable content? I'm completely confused. To be clear, this is not about promoting anything else i'm affiliated with as much as it IS about ensuring as a Sox fan we have something represented equally as Cubs fans have in Ronnie Woo Woo. Thanks as always for your help Sportsbank (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Green Experiments · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi Ron, I had a zillion windows open and went back to pick up some more information, but pouf! The article had been deleted. Could you move what was there into my userspace somehow, with suitable banners or disclaimers? Trilliumz (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Userfied to User:Trilliumz/Green Experiments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Trilliumz (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100 Scariest Movie Moments, the nominator withdrew, and the sole remaining delete vote was per improperly applied WP:NOR. Why relist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a "keep" !vote and asked carrite to revisit the discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and close. Admittedly the original article "looked" like a list article, and I could understand how, with only a quick glance, anyone might have seen it as some editor's personal list... which is why I did what editing there that I did to uderscore it was a mini-series. Perception is everything. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Igor Ledóchowski · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello,

You recently deleted my page (Igor Ledochowski) which was here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Led%C3%B3chowski

I am a real person, please can you let me know how the article can be re-instated? Here's a link to one of the books I wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Trance-Training-Manual-Hypnotic/dp/1899836977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306921316&sr=8-1

Is that evidence enough or does Wikipedia need more references? If so, please let me know what you require.

Many thanks in advance and all the best

Igor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.56.253 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the link above that says "afd" you will see that there was a discussion about the fate of "your" article. In it there was no doubt that you are a real person but that you at this time don't meet WP:CREATIVE. This might change in the future but I strongly advise you to review our guidelines on autobiographies and conflict of interest. One indication that a subject may be notable (but not in itself sufficient for an article) is if a neutral editor unrelated to the subject "takes note of" the subject and elects to write an article about it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron! There appears to be nothing I can see either way in the relevant policy about AfD nominations that have been withdrawn by the nom. Your advice most appreciated. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If the nominator withdraws and there are no other arguments for deletion then anybody can close it, including someone who !voted. When I withdraw my own noms I close them myself. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Speedy_keep criteria 1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• List of prepaid mobile phone brands · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

After attempting a Deletion Review, I was informed that I must first contest the deletion with the original administrator who approved the article's deletion, which I believe was you.

1) This is an important navigation page that bridges to many other WP pages. This deletion dead ends a key part of the Prepaid_mobile_phone page. Without this list I can no longer navigate to the companies the page is about. Deletion fails to recognize that people navigate WP in different ways. I use such bridge pages frequently to navigate to other WP articles.

WP is more than just a bunch of isolated articles, it is also a web of information. You deleted the web. Consistently applying the argument presented to justify this deletion would remove a significant portion of WP and cripple its navigability.

2) This page was deleted with only perfunctory discussion. There was no consideration of the value of such pages for navigating to other WP articles.

3) Misapplication of WP:NOT. “Wikipedia is not a sales catalog or directory.” Claim was made, but this page does not meet any of the listed criteria for deletion at WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

4) Some people are biased against anything to do with business. Any list of businesses would prove an attractive target for someone with such a bias. The perfunctory discussion and leap to deletion suggests some sort of hidden agenda. Political beliefs of any kind should not influence decisions about WP content.

5) The result of the discussion should have been "not proven" and the result should have been no action. A critical examination of the discussion does not support any action. "Guilty until proven innocent" should not be the starting point. The process looks like a Kangaroo_court, leaping to a false conclusion with no basis in fact.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpiwowar (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I originally closed the AFD discussion as "delete" because, while there wasn't a lot of participation, the nominator made a plausable argument for deletion and nobody objected. I have undeleted the article and reopened the AFD so you need to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prepaid mobile phone brands. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron. Question -- you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling Circle, in which there was just one one comment given by an editor (an IP) in 22 days, indicating there was leave to speedy renominate it. What is the timeframe that you would think appropriate for that? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NPASR 2 seconds from now if you want. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks ... and thanks for being speedy in your response! Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know there was no need to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ink stick as it has been discussed on the articles talk page and we have decided to redirect the page and this has been acted upon. If you could close the discussion to reflect this that would be great. --wintonian ^talk 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Done and closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --wintonian ^talk 03:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Mad Maggies · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Not sure why it was deleted. Is there something I need to do to ensure that won't happen again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.170.135.132 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because an editor placed a prod tag on it and it remained in place for 7 days with nobody objecting. The issue being notability, particularly WP:BAND. The article is now at "articles for deletion" because I couldn't find any significant news coverage about this band. If you wish to contest the article's deletion then you need to make your case here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron,

I'm hoping to improve A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade, whose AfD candidate page you've recently relisted, by adding an image to it. I haven't been able to locate any images of the band without a strict copyright through Google, Flickr, or FIST. Do you know whether it would be considered fair use if I took a screenshot of the band's famous video (with the interface of YouTube or a news website clearly identifiable)? I read WP:SCREEN hoping to find the answer there, but that page really only addresses screenshots of software. I think the visible interface might even help the article since the viral video has been so important in garnering attention for the band.

I also have another brief question. May I change the case of one word in the article's title ("Da" should be "da"), or would that be disruptive to the AfD process in some way?

Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a still active band then most likely it won't be allowed, see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. As long as it's conceivably possible to take a picture of a person/band and release it under a free licence, then a non-free image can't be used. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rcirc (2nd nomination) just be closed instead of relisting? The first AfD established that the subject met the notability guideline and this AfD nom was made in retaliation for me posting this to AN/I. See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 76#Disgraceful, thinly-veiled racist comments. (The first AfD back in October 2009 of course, was initiated by two of three editors who were mass AfDing articles I'd edited, see this AN/I for the eventual result. Both of those accounts are since abandoned after being sanctioned following that AN/I and the third is indefed.) --Tothwolf (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond to this. I've seen this editor around AFD and it's obvious that he's not a newbie. However, he has nominated other articles on computer related subjects for deletion so there's no way to be certain one way or another if this was a "revenge nom". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Miss Representation · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (incubated article)

Hi Ron,

I made some edits to the Miss Representation page and was wondering if you think it is acceptable now? And if not, what might need to change to make it work? It's an awesome documentary with a great message and I just want to make sure it spreads to the masses. Thanks!

- ImranSiddiquee — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImranSiddiquee (talk • contribs)

Hello, Ron Ritzman. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looks like you forgot Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magick (Ryan Adams and the Cardinals song). Cheers, De728631 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Done You can redirect that as an editorial decision if you want. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just done that. De728631 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it make sense to also indent the various !votes of that account in yesterday's log? --Pgallert (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Lorraine Platt · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi Ron being new to Wiki I don't understand how an article can be deleted by one persons subjective view. I orriginaly posted the article 2 years ago and edited as requested by reviewers and the article has been accepted since. All the information in the article is verifiable and I include additional information here. I note that you reinstated the article on 1st of June please can you advise how I reinstae the article and not have it removed on subjective opinion. Is the person who deleted this article an art expert? He dismiss the refference book as having 14500 artists. this book is a difinitive guide of notable British Artist over 62 years that equates to under 250 artists a year becoming notable out of the many thousands of prcticing artists each year!

Lorraine Platt:UN DELETE AS ALL THE INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE. A personal opinion on notability by an individual challenger is subjective and this book is concerned with fact. In The Dictionary of British Artist Since 1945 by David Buckman,the book publishers gratefully acknowledge the generous sponsorship support which they have received from Bonhams,Christie's, Sanson & Company and Sotheby's. This dictionary was part of a special display at the Hyman Krietman Reserach Centre, Tate Britain, of books researched there which they considered of "significant importance to scholarship". The style of the Artist is as the Artist describes her influences on her website. The artists work is clearly featured in the book Watercolour Still Life in Association with the Royal Academy of Arts by Elizabeth Jane Lloyd (ISBN 0 7513 0072 1). The artist is currently exhibiting in the Drang Gallery whose artists include Damien Hirst, David Hockney, Sir Terry Frost, John Piper, Sir Peter Blake and Bridget Riley.

Any help or advice on how I get the article reinstated greatly appreciated

GingerSnowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerSnowman (talk • contribs) 11:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete this article or close the AFD. It was closed by Cirt so you need to discuss it with him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied at user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• UniBall · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Why did you delete the Uniball page? You said there have been no "improvements" in a year. Does a game have to constantly change to make it acceptable for Wikipedia? Uniball is one of THE longest running free online multiplayer games, since 1999 I believe. I haven't been around quite as long as the game so I'm not exactly sure on that as some other people are. It still has a user-base that plays every day. So what was the reason for deleting the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.167.62 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I deleted it because there was a consensus to do so in the AFD discussion linked to above. If it wasn't me it would have been some other admin. If you have sources that you believe satisfy WP:N then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

360 Creative, Inc. · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] Hello I work for 360 Creative, Inc. and we noticed you took down our page I would like to reinstate it.

Can you undo what you did? Was there a reason for the deletion? We also want our log instead of the flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 360 Creative, Inc. (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the link that says "afd" above you will see that there was a discussion where it was decided that your company does not meet our notability guidelines for companies at this time and that the article was an advertisement. Furthermore, being connected with this company you have a serious conflict of interest. If 360 Creative, Inc. is to have an article in the future it will need to be written by somebody not connected with the company. However, if you still disagree with this decision then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Kay Kristin Boutilier · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Ron, I had requested that a page which had been deleted under speedy deletion be restored and is now up for deletion review. I have requested the talk page for the article be restored by the admin who deleted it as I felt it had contained important information as to why it should not be deleted. Would it be likely for the reviewers to see this information before making a decision? Thanks a lot Wiki86420 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page has already been restored by Fastily. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks Wiki86420 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Following on from your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Akers, two months has passed and no edits have been made to the page, I am still unable to find sources for him and he still appears to fail by some WP:GNG. Do you have any objection to me re-nominating at this time ?

Mtking (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The renom time for "keep" closes is not fixed but it's generally considered to be about 3 months give or take. However, on the article in question I suspect that a renom at this time would have the same result. There are a lot of AFD participants who feel that, supersources or no supersources, appearing in one professional game is all that is needed because that's what WP:NSPORT says. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Explosade · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello, Would it be alright for me to recreate the Explosade page using some information from the orginal page you deleted and some extra information I've found out? Mr.C.Pearson.UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.C.Pearson.UK (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that most generic store brand products are simply not notable. If you have sources that say otherwise you are welcome to present them to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Cluique · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] why did you delete my page ?! It is not a hoax and i am making a web show called hollywood cluiqe about three tweens that go big time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogalbratz (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And once you make that show and it gets coverage, we can have an article on it. At the time I deleted it I found absolutely no evidence that it existed. See WP:V. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Man that made me hungry. I live thousands of miles away from the nearest one, far as I know. I miss it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that Ron lives in Atlanta, all hip and metrosexual and yuppie and cultural, while the rest of us are slaving away in places remote from civilization. He's probably out clubbing tonight. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. Well said--thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take another look at your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes (2nd nomination)? You had closed it as "no consensus", but I see two people (myself and another poster) arguing strongly in favor of deletion with policy-based rationales, and a third person saying that the article might just barely squeak past the notability threshold. The "Keep" comment seemed based largely on a Google Books hit count, which isn't really a compelling AfD argument (at least from my perspective). Anyhow, admittedly I have a biased view as the AfD nominator, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to take another look or expand a bit on the "no consensus" rationale. Thanks, MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While we both know that AFD is not a !vote, the !vote count is not meaningless. While there are exceptions, (ie unsourced BLPs) I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator before I hit the delete button. While I occasionally will close them with 1, I don't like to do that if there's a "keep" !vote.

However, while I didn't originally say "with leave to speedy renominate" in my close, I wouldn't be opposed to a speedy renomination per WP:NPASR as it was relisted twice and only had 2 !votes aside from you and I have changed my closing rationale to state that. It's likely that a deletion review would result in "relist" anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your quick and reasonable response. Maybe I'll sit on it for awhile and renominate. I agree that a WP:DRV would probably end up with a "relist", and there's no hurry (I doubt anyone even looks at the page) so probably no need to slog through an additional process. I think the lack of input at the AfD (after 2 relistings) is sort of an indication of how non-notable the subject is, but I know that's not a formal criterion. Anyhow, thanks again for your response. MastCell ^Talk 03:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jason Salcedo · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

hello Ron, Would it be possible if you please undo that deleted page of Jason Salcedo, Hes was a child actor in the Phillippines back in the 90's, hes movies are not in circulation anymore that is why you cant find anymore information on him, those movies he made were groundbreaking that is why his fans still watch his movies a decade after he left the business, he now resides in California. but he does exist, my friend is one of his biggest fans and she was wondering why she his page disappeared when she looked him up. please put the page back up.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnoypwr531 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't do that. For us to have an article on the subject there has to be verifiable information on it. Furthermore, the article was an unsourced biography of a living person. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• ActionTrip · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello Ron,

This is the first time I am writing to you directly. I'd like to say that I see no reason why you would remove the wiki page for ActionTrip.com. In response to some your standards and requirements, I've offered some of examples of our long history - numerous quotes, links to features, and such, just to give you a rough idea of what the site is about.

    Quote:
    02.14.2011
    Mass Effect 3 is Most Wanted by Action Trip
    The fans over at Action Trip were asked to name the games they are most excited for in 2011. The game that came in first? Mass Effect 3!
    Here's the URL to our voting poll - http://www.actiontrip.com/polls.phtml?showpoll=133

   Action Trip - 2009 Reader's Choice Game of the Year
   "With a well-written storyline, great atmosphere and old-school RPG gameplay, this title justifies every penny of its $60 price tag."

   Action Trip - 2009 Reader's Choice Game of the Year
   "The game has all the elements you need to immerse yourself in an interesting new fantasy setting."

                                                - Action Trip has given the game its "Action game of the Year" award for 2008.
                                                - MTV Game Awards has given the game its "Game of the Year" award for 2008.

Best regards, Ure "Vader" Paul Senior Editor, ActionTrip.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ure Vader Paul (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete ActionTrip. If you click the link that says "afd" above you will see that it was deleted by Cirt who was carrying out the consensus. Therefore, you need to discuss this with him and if not satisfied with his answer, deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• BDB Book Club · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hello, I am a new user and had created a page of a well known and appreciated Book Club of India yesterday. I understand you had nominated it for speedy deletion and I am sure there must be something which I didn't do right for you take such a decision. Could you please let me know what all information/references are required so a page is not nominated for a speedy deletion? Also, it was definitely not an advert but if it seemed so, let me know what should be done to stop from that to happen. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.111.82 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to concur with Bwilkin's view at requests for undeletion. Wikipedia is not a webhost and this club is not notable at this time. If we are to have an article on this subject in the future, it will need to be written by somebody with no connection with this company. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Smart Power Generation · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi, I would request undeletion of the article. The concept is becoming known through the first ever power plant built using it http://mobile.reuters.com/article/Deals/idUS51507+29-Jun-2011+HUG20110629, and coverage in the press e.g. http://www.thehindu.com/business/companies/article2096784.ece and http://www.power-technology.com/contractors/powerplantequip/wartsila/press69.html ADF2020 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFD2020 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but the consensus at the recent AFD discussion was clear. If you think those sources establish notability then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, will do. AFD2020 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smart Power Generation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AFD2020 (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Avionyx · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hello,

I would like to have the Avionyx page back. We are a services SW engineering services company (check www.avionyx.com) and are very interested in having the article back. It took me several hours to put together the article, I tried to follow all the recommendations for new articles and I am not sure why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esanchi (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the link that says "afd" above, you will see that there was a consensus that this company does not meet our notability requirements for companies at this time. Furthermore, per your use of "we", it's clear that you have a conflict of interest. If we are to have an article on this subject in the future, it will need to be written by somebody not connected with Avionyx. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Chordmed (project) · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

What do you mean with Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.? 91.183.8.153 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If nobody !votes in an AFD after 7 days the discussion is relisted for another 7, it's common practice here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

i have attempted to create an acceptable entry on kyle creed to be found at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Scruss/Kyle_Creed

thought you might wanna take a look at it before i put it in wikipedia. i'm rusty as i haven't done any editing in several years as i have children now and no extra time, but i believe it is at least a start. kyle creed is at least as notable an old time banjo player and builder as any number of other contemporaries who have decent entries. thanks a lot and i look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockader (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

so rusty i forgot to sign!

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockader (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Kyle_Creed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

yay! and i remembered how to sign! Blockader (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to discuss with you the decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Serinsky. I think what happened is partly my fault, as I should have responded to the IP's claim of notability. However, in any event I think the decision should be revisted.

There were only two !votes: mine as the nom, and the single-purpose IP who !voted keep. The keep vote was based on the rationale that the musician is signed (not sure what that means, but it is not listed in WP:MUSICBIO), and is a guitarist for Steve Vai. I have just checked out the latter claim, and the best I could find were references like this one. All it suggests is that the subject of the article played backup guitar in a live tour that showcased a number of notable guitarists. I can't even find any reviews of that tour that mentioned the subject of the article in any significant way.

Therefore, I believe the IP's keep !vote was not properly policy based in hindsight (although it would not have been clear until I or another editor had done a verification check, which I left until right after the AfD closed). I'm not sure what the next step is. Can the AfD be re-opened, and re-listed with my comments added? Should I re-nominate? Is it something left for DRV? Singularity42 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to renominate it any time you like, even immediately per WP:NPASR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)