User talk:Ron Ritzman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Newtones

I was rather confused by your closure of this AfD. I believe that considering the lack of comments the debate needs to relisted. It also doesn't exactly meet the criteria for an obvious keep. ^LeaveSleaves 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep wouldn't apply, given the time frame (its for fast closures). It was pointless to relist a second time in my opinion. Synergy 02:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it was not exactly a straightforward speedy keep. But I assumed that's how the AfD was closed. But if I'm wrong, I take that back. And I don't think second relisting is such a bad idea. I've seen it being applied pretty commonly. ^LeaveSleaves 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. WP:NAC is more of what happened here. A second relisting could have been done, but given how long its been sitting there, with no comments, it was unlikely to have stirred up anything new. Synergy 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd still like a reply though. ^LeaveSleaves 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to reply for the past 10 minutes, edit conflicts :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought. It was listed for 10 days (relisted once) with nobody but the nominator saying "delete". Relisting a second time would have been almost pointless. If it were only open for 5 days with 2 "keeps" one "weak", I would have relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly passionate about it. Just thought relist was a better choice. We'd have to see what the nominator thinks of it. ^LeaveSleaves 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rick Simpson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rick Simpson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Simpson. Thank you. LK (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trout

*picks out fish scale* Well, I suppose I deserve it for not checking the policy updates. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cathy_Silvers

I saw your non-administrative closure of Cathy Silvers AFD. According to the criteria, multiple significant roles are required. The article mentions that she's had only 1 role in 1 TV series. So according to the criteria, she didn't seem notable to me. I didn't nominate it to be mean. I nominated it because it didn't seem to meet the criteria. None of the keep comments disputed my delete reasons. Should you re-open the AFD??? Ipromise (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, I would've closed it the same way. I don't think re-opening this AfD will serve any useful purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate was open for 5 days (minus 3 hours) and unfortunately, you were the only editor arguing for deletion. I don't think relisting it would have made a difference but if you still disagree, you can have the close reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Burrows

Hi. I noticed you closed the discussion. Just reminding you to also remove the AfD template from the page when doing so. I've done it for you, so just a reminder for the future. Good call and continuing the merge discussion on the article talk page. Will set it up right now, if it isn't up already. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 06:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Turienzo Alvarez

Why the relist on the hoax article that nobody voted to keep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When doing an initial run through the log, I quickly relist everything that lacks comment's/!votes and this discussion only had yours. (User:Download's !vote was actually posted after the relist) In this case it was probably a little too quick but fortunately, a "bad relist", unlike a bad close, is easy to fix. In this case it was just closed 'Delete by DragonflySixtyseven. I'm a lot more careful when evaluating an AFD for a close.

BTW if this hoax was blatant, couldn't it have been deleted under CSD G4? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

G3, I think you mean. But in any case, I don't think G3 applied. G3 would be talking about Obama's years in McMurdo Sound -- obviously debunkable, since his life is well-documented. On this one, we just didn't have any evidence that supported the article, and no evidence that showed the claims were definitely false (like a list of all the musicians at the sessions he was claimed to be at). Hence, full prod or AfD required.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Ron, you relisted WP:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney when it had not been closed. Not only was this a problem, had the AfD been, itself, legitimate, but perhaps you did not notice that the nominator was an SPA created when an IP was warned about vandalizing the article. The IP then voted in the AfD. The standing !vote was, then, among those responding other than the nominator, only one !vote for Delete, with two for Keep. (Not only would we disregard the nominator's revote, but we would also normally disregard the !votes of SPAs and newly-registered accounts with few edits.) This AfD would almost certainly have closed as Keep or No Consensus, which is effectively Keep, with renomination discouraged for a month or more. I'm taking this AfD to AN/I because it's a poster boy for disruptive AfD process. This SPA led the community by the nose into a disruptive debate over marginal notability, and your idea that we should find "consensus" in AfDs (better than the quite acceptable rough consensus that existed when you relisted) is itself disruptive. Please reconsider it. Please do not disrupt AfD process, it's enough of a problem without this. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a series of relistings today that are similarly improper. I will be reverting them as I can, and I have reported this issue to AN/I with [1]. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)