Jump to content

User talk:Ron Ritzman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs)
Line 261: Line 261:


Ron, your close on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song)]] stated: "It's been snowing here since day 2." I don't understand how you can say that when every contribution on day two through save one was canvassed, and the one was by the canvasser himself? (Indeed, of even users canvassed, all but one chimed in with identical and outraged keep !votes.) The canvas problem was noted in the discussion; did you take that into account when you closed, and if so, how can you say that it was snowing on day two? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ [[User:Simon Dodd|U]]·[[User talk:Simon Dodd|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Simon_Dodd|C]]·[[WP:LAW]] }</small> 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ron, your close on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song)]] stated: "It's been snowing here since day 2." I don't understand how you can say that when every contribution on day two through save one was canvassed, and the one was by the canvasser himself? (Indeed, of even users canvassed, all but one chimed in with identical and outraged keep !votes.) The canvas problem was noted in the discussion; did you take that into account when you closed, and if so, how can you say that it was snowing on day two? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ [[User:Simon Dodd|U]]·[[User talk:Simon Dodd|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Simon_Dodd|C]]·[[WP:LAW]] }</small> 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:Yes some might have been canvassed and I took that under consideration but many were not. All of the "keep" !votes, except for the last 3, came in the first 2 days (including !votes from several administrators). IMHO it was obvious at that point that none of the articles were going to be deleted. In any case the issue is moot because I closed it on day 7 and there were no arguments for deletion aside from yours. However, if somebody had closed it after day 2 per [[WP:SNOW]] and the close went to DRV, I would endorse the close. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman#top|talk]]) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:23, 14 April 2011


anthill

Hi Ron, I can't blame you that you didn't want to go through the whole discussion we had with Snowded, but in all this information overflow my request must have been missed: would you be so kind as to copy antenarrative content into my sandbox? Depending on the content of the article I may try to repair it, since I am an organizational scholar familiar with the idea (even though it is not my area of specialty). thanks! Pundit|utter 07:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Userfied to User:Pundit/Antenarrative, (talk page also restored) However, it looks like you have an uphill battle if you want to show that this has been widely noted outside the works of David Boje. If you can do this, as well as show that this is more then original research, then submit the draft to deletion review before moving it back to mainspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Showing academic use of antenarrative outside of Boje's work is much easier than e.g. in the case of Cynefin (see for yourself). Cynefin is just in better shape in terms of adhering to the format. Pundit|utter 14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Peter MacDonald

Hi Ron,

The deletion of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Peter MacDonald

Pcmacdon (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sure, that sounds fine. Let me know what I need to do... Pcmacdon (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have moved the article to the incubator and informed the linux wikiproject. Also, since you do have a few edits to this article, it still might be a good idea to review WP:AUTO if you haven't already done so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deletion of article entitled Andrea Elizabeth Michaels

Dear Mr. Ritzman:

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

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

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

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

I am happy to answer any question that you might have for me about this article. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Cmckibben (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have restored the article and reopened the AFD. You now need to make your case there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ritzman:

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

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

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

Deletion of Carvelli

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

Hello,

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

Thank you.Rach Beau (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleting Yukon Gear & Axle

Yukon Gear & Axle was deleted today and I would like to discuss the reasoning. I was working on adding more links/references and "Wikifying" the site. I know others were working on re-writing to be more neutral but before we were able to, the topic/information was deleted. I tried to write the article in such a way to inform interested parties on what Yukon Gear & Axle was; this is not any different than the Dana Corporation article. Please reinstate the article so we can continue to improve upon it. Thank you - Boqle (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there was a clear consensus in the deletion discussion (which you can read by clicking "afd" above) that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria, particularly WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedia article. However, if you still disagree then you are welcome to have the deletion reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey there. I'm not sure why you relisted the AFD discussion of War Division. If you read the comments, a consensus had already been reached: keep the article under a new name, and more context. I'm not sure if you can "un-relist" a discussion, but I'm just letting you know. Cheers. --Ashershow1talkcontribs 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a weak consensus to rename this article but there needs to be more discussion on the issue of "keep vs delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

Hi! I was wondering if you could put the contents of the article deleted in this afd into a user subpage, along with its talk page. I know it turned out to all be wrong, but I'm hoping to do some more research into the whole thing. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done userfied to User:Yaksar/Higgby Act. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding clearer discussion of Naman Y. Goyal

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

As a former prolific non-admin AfD closer, would you provide some input at User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Non-admin closure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the issue in the liberals for Life AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comment about the other 2 closes you mentioned. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insightful comments. I hope Alpha Quadrant will take to heart the advice. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra (band)

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

Sincerely yours, Arkad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkad (talkcontribs) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "come from nowhere" and delete the article. If you click in the link that says "AFD" above, you will see that the article was nominated for deletion and the discussion ran for seven days with a clear consensus to delete. I just reviewed the discussion and carried out the decision. If it were not me it would have been some other admin. However, if you disagree with the result you can have the decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi there- I saw where you deleted Foundation for Enterprise Development. Thanks for that. Could you also please delete SPORTS for Exceptional Athletes, which was a dual nomination in that same AfD? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the "also nominated" but after review, I don't see that these 2 articles are related aside from both being created by the same editor. Also, only one !voter mentioned the second article. I would recommend a separate AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Chris DeRosa

Hi Ron,

I am a follower of this (as well as many other) musicians. I enjoyed the information on this article (it was informative) and am puzzled as to it's omission. Is it possible for you to revisit it and modify the content as to not violate your standards (if that was the case)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.171.69 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was really no consensus in the discussion. However, I deleted it because it was a biography of a living person without sources. Anybody is free to recreate this article with sources or I can restore it to the incubator but I won't restore it to article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sense dragging this one out. I'll take it under my wing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ron. Appreciations. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check?

In looking at history of the article Ricardo Fort I see that it was tagged for a speedy on March 7 and that the speedy was declined on March 8... resulting in the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Fort which you relisted on March 15. But in further examination of the article history,[1] it seems an AFD template was never added to the article, so though 9 days later than it should have been, I placed one there[2] and then went and added it to the deletion log.[3] Could you check to make sure I made no errors? Thanks much. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris DeRosa

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

He is listed on many recordings and is also in several national/international music videos: http://wn.com/Melba_Moore_Phil_Perry_Performing_Weakness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.146.247 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are self published blogs. See WP:RS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Susanne Kessler

Hello Ron, I added some quotations to prove the article. Other editors decided to keep the article. Please let me know, what I can do that the article of Susanne Kessler comes out of incubation. THX!!! I don't know which page I should reply to, any help is appreciated.

Leda47 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion review for Susanne Kessler

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susanne Kessler. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Leda47 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Carvelli

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carvelli. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAFIAMAN - ( Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh )

Hello...I am RAFIAMAN , Why my page is deleted few days ago???? I wanna to make a new Article About "Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh". Cause this very important for World Aviation sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAFIAMAN (talkcontribs) 09:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have gone over the entire history of this article and I have to decline for all the reasons given in my AFD closing statement. The subject does not meet our inclusion guidelines for organizations and every version of this article was more of an advertisement then an encyclopedia article with much of the text plagiarized from the organization's website. Also it's likely that you are connected with the organization. In the future it may be possible that the organization might be notable. One of the indications that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor completely unrelated to the subject chooses to write an article about it but I'm sorry, you are not that editor. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A few months ago, you closed an AFD discussion on Jersey Circus citing no consensus on whether the coverage was significant, despite it being reiterated that almost all of the coverage claimed was on other non-notable blogs. A few days afterward, the page was redirected to the Parodies section of Family Circus, which I now realize is a much more reasonable solution than the ones I offered. Would it be possible for you to alter your decision, or will I need to take it to Deletion Review? ~jcm 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a DRV was is certainly within your right but I think it would be pointless for a 2 month old "no consensus" close. A second AFD would be a better option. (a DRV would likely result in a "relist" decision anyway) However, first I would try discussing the matter on the article's talk page with those who advocate a standalone article and possibly a third opinion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would go to the article's talk page, but I'm not really sure the blog's popular enough in that I'd find enough people to reach a consensus with. Should I go directly to Dravecky about it, since he's the one who feels most strongly about it, or should I just take it to AFD? ~jcm 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing it with Dravecky might be a good idea. Though I have no opinion one way or the other, (if I did I would have !voted not closed) you should consider the possibility that he might be right. As for the AFD, I took a second look and "no consensus" was the correct call. When participants in an AFD start counting the number of sentences or words in a source, it's unlikely that there will be an agreement about what constitutes "significant". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Peter Adediran

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

Can you Please Delete Peter Adediran' Photo as well?

Can you please delete the following photo of Peter Adediran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Adediran.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.79.28 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that photo is hosted by commons and I don't have admin privileges there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Jawad Asghar

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

Still waiting your confirmation. Ithad (talk) 17:03, 2 April, 2011 (UTC)

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

Technically, since the article has been previously PRODded and contested, the AfD can no longer be treated as an uncontested PROD. I'm not saying you should modify the result for the sake of process, just FYI. -- King of 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to WP:NPASR no consensus. I would have restored it on request from the creator but after looking at his contribs I suspect he doesn't know how to use talk pages or participate in discussions such as AFD, otherwise he would have defended the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this as speedy delete, one editor blanked the page. This might apply to the disambig page in the main title, but not to the linked nomination of APECO itself. You might want to decide that or revert that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I should have read that more closely. I saw the main article redlinked and thought the deleting admin forgot to close the AFD. I've reverted and relisted the discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion discussion doesn't seem to have been relisted properly. It showed up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Old deletion discussions, and Mr.Z-man's tool isn't picking up the original listing for relisting. Logan Talk Contributions 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will go away the next time mathbot updates the log. If you don't want to wait then kick him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Pablo Gato

Good evening. I've tried to find the discussion threads for this issue, but have been unable to do so. I'm writing to inquire as to why Pablo Gato's page was deleted. I've reviewed the information regarding notability and he definitely qualifies. He's an award-winning (2 Emmys, in addition to other awards and nominations) international correspondent as well as a published author. He resides in the United States and his career has been mostly here in the States. I would appreciate your assistance to understand the decision to remove him. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercideltoro (talkcontribs) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click where it says "afd" above you will be taken to the deletion discussion. It was listed for 21 days without any !votes and I normally close such discussions as "no consensus". However the article was an unsourced biography of a living person and that's why I deleted it. I will not restore this article to mainspace but you or anybody else is welcome to write a new version with sources. I can also restore the deleted version to your userspace or the incubator where it can be moved back into article space when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I still don't understand much about "unsourced," etc., but will try to rectify. Please do restore it to my userspace. Thank you. Mercideltoro (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 11 Alpha-BLANK-BLANK AfD challenges

Sorry to bug you, but you're one of the AfD-oriented administrators that I respect a lot. I'd like to request that you consider closing the rest of the Alpha-BLANK-BLANK AfD nominations from April 11, which were made via Twinkle by a user who hacked his way around a ban on use of the tool in order to launch an undifferentiated deletion attack. About half of them have been closed as bad faith nominations, but for some reason the others were allowed to stand, seemingly based on one or two Delete votes. They should all be shut down as improper nominations. Let people pick the 3 or 4 legitimate nominations — which were inadvertently hit in the wanton barrage of shotgun blasts — and renominate those legitimately so that they may be dispassionately considered on their merits. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The few I looked at had more then 1 delete !vote so they may have to go the distance. I'll take another look at them later. However, I have commented in the ANI thread about the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close on "The Writer"

Ron, your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song) stated: "It's been snowing here since day 2." I don't understand how you can say that when every contribution on day two through save one was canvassed, and the one was by the canvasser himself? (Indeed, of even users canvassed, all but one chimed in with identical and outraged keep !votes.) The canvas problem was noted in the discussion; did you take that into account when you closed, and if so, how can you say that it was snowing on day two? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some might have been canvassed and I took that under consideration but many were not. All of the "keep" !votes, except for the last 3, came in the first 2 days (including !votes from several administrators). IMHO it was obvious at that point that none of the articles were going to be deleted. In any case the issue is moot because I closed it on day 7 and there were no arguments for deletion aside from yours. However, if somebody had closed it after day 2 per WP:SNOW and the close went to DRV, I would endorse the close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]