User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

123456Archive 789101112131415

Leighton Meester album article deletion

Hey, I've noticed that you deleted the article for Leighton Meester's album, Love Is a Drug. Can I post the article again with new updates on her music/album? I know it doesn't even have an official release date and it's been in creation for a while but it's still a studio album, and I know thee must be people that want to know about it. --Cyberjoel95 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish I'll be glad to userfy this for you. You could then add your sources and then submit the draft to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello! Regarding XFDs, is it really so important that XFDs are up for at least 168 hours? You closed the Scott Winkler AFD exactly 168 hours after it was created. As far as I know, XFDs can be closed per WP:SNOW. HeyMid (contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. When I did relists as a non-admin, which is done off the 7 day log, I would also close any clear keeps I came across without paying attention to the exact second they were open. However, this discussion was going on during my RFA so now I am more mindful of the time the AFD was open, not just the date but I'll still close a few "borderline snow" cases while relisting but nothing close and/or still receiving comments. The close you found and one other happened because I just happened to open the log page a few minutes before both were due so I let the clock tick out to the exact minute just for the lulz :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to Ron Ritzman, regarding article placement, or relevance.

Hello Ron, my name is Davidkhad, and I had made the article(past tense, was deleted by you): Waltlou Mobile Home Park, and I wanted to ask you a few questions if you have a moment or two. With a subject like I had made, the mobile home park, where is the most fitting place for that in your opinion? It was deleted because of notability solely is what I understand, and do you think there is another place for it, in perhaps another area of wikipedia? Some people mentioned that they would put it in a section of business, and some had other suggestions. If you get some time, will you give me your opinion about placement of the article, or if I made a miss step, and it was article worthy. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter when you get some time. Thank you, David Khadduri, davidkhad.Dave (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)davidkhadDave (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that on wikipedia at least, there is no place for it at the current time. As for other wikis, you might check to see if Wikia has a wiki for Falmouth, Virginia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ron, Thank you for taking the time to give me a response, and the link. Is there a place, or another "wiki" format that businesses use, not exactly regarding notability, but a place where businesses can be found. Thank you, DaveDave (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadley's Theorem

I have a short note for "Hadley's Theorem" which was a formula for trisecting an angle and came back to look for it today. I've found it deleted.

I've read through the arguments for deletion. Many of the describe the work as original research or not having sources. This seems very strange to me as it is a method which is based on simple trigonometry and algebra. Anyone with high school maths can ascertain the validity of the work. A high school text book would seem to be sufficient to establish that this is not original research. It is an application of well established math principles.

It also seems as though the name "Hadley's Theorem" has caused issues. You may have watched the Norman Wildberger video on youtube in which he discusses this work. WildTrig29. The caption for this video is "Trisecting angles from a rational trigonometry point of view, featuring a new theorem of Hadley, and relations to the trisectrix." At 2'44" Wildberger begins to discuss the trisection and the supporting maths on the white board has the heading "Hadley's Theorem". At 3'10" Wildberger says "a lovely theorem of Frank Hadley asserts ..." and after making the proof using his rational trigonometry (6'00") he says "That's a proof, in both directions, of Hadley's Theorem".

Am I wrong to assume that the main issue is that there is no prior evidence of this formula being called "Hadley's Theorem"?

I think that the page deserves to be reinstated. It could be retitled and edited to note that the maths community does not yet know the formula as "Hadley's Theorem". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eukaryotes (talkcontribs) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons. The main one was that the subject has no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you know of such sources that weren't bought forth in the AFD discussion then you are welcome to file a deletion review and present those sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what I don't understand. A mathematical formula is a self contained object. It either works or it doesn't. In this case, it works and the level of knowledge required to ascertain that the formula is valid is taught at high school, so it is possible for the main arguments to be verified. The Wildberger video includes a verification, as I noted above, he spends about 3mins discussing the idea and walking through the steps needed to prove the formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eukaryotes (talkcontribs) 06:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Voting after relist

Ron please see - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_29#Georgia_Blizzard_of_2011 and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgia_Blizzard_of_2011. You relisted and then acknowledged that you had been personally affected by the storm. Your relist was against the existing consensus at the time which was for a delete and then you voted keep a couple of days later. This really stinks. Even if the relist was not against a clear consensus, as an admin you have to appear to be objective when you act in AFDs which means you had no place voting after the event. Please be more careful/thoughtful in future. Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Two points...
1. I didn't even know the article existed until I saw it on the log when relisting other debates. I've relisted other AFDs before with the same !vote count and would have relisted this one whether or not the event affected me.
2. I don't believe my !vote was inappropriate. We allow page creators and the subject of articles to !vote "keep" and this is no different. It's up to the closing administrator as to how much weight to give such !votes. I have just as much right to my opinion on the matter as any other editor and my !vote was based on a search for sources. if I had found nothing I would have said "delete". I will acknowledge one error I made here is that I perhaps should have altered my !vote when it was bought up that a broader article on the subject existed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm very concerned that you do not seem to understand the validity of the concern I raised. Would you not agree that in all things deletion any action with even a hint of impropriety is unacceptable - especially given how emotional a subject deletion is for both new and old users. Lets not add any more fuel to the abusive admin meme... Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you're saying that "relisting" an article is an administrative action on par with closing it and that should only be done by someone "impartial" and I should have done either one or the other (relist or !vote). it might appear that I relisted an AFD with a consensus leaning toward "delete" because I personally wanted it "kept". Is that what you are saying? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisting is an administrative action because you are assessing the state of the consensus of the discussion at a time when it is due to be closed. I personally read the consensus as delete at the time of relisting but I accept that other admins acting in good faith can reach a different conclusion. I am suggesting that by indicating a personal impact from the storm at the time of relisting you are making it possible for someone to believe that you had a personal interest (real or subconscious) in the existence of the article. I am also suggesting that by later voting keep when a nose count at the time you relisted would have have this as an easy delete (yes I know its more nuanced then that), you are also making it very easy for an inexperienced or deliberately obtuse editor to presume that you had that position at the time you relisted and that your act was not therefore a neutral act. Personally, I do no believe that there would be the slightest shred of truth in any of that but I do believe it would be easy to misconstrue your actions. I have seen your activity in 100s of AFDs and never seen anything like this before but I do think its an unnecessary risk and it is for this reason that I always recuse myself from opining in AFDs that I have relisted. You are not the first AFD relister I have pulled up for voting on discussions they have relisted. Appearance is all sometimes and we still have enough participants that we do not need to add any fuel to any imaginary flames. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly the language at Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions refers to the closer which is synonymous to an administrative action, so I guess my view has some community support. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that my actions on the blizzard article were not optimal but as for !voting after relisting in general, I think there are some cases where it could be done. I relisted this AFD on the 14th and later encountered it on the 29th. In both cases the AFD was simply "next on the list". I was going to close it "no consensus" (which it later was by king of hearts) but decided to !vote instead of close. When I do this it's to avoid being charged with casting a "supervote" myself and to make it easier on the next admin who encounters it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would leave for the next admin to do that but AFD is getting so broken these days.... Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, it's the "brokenness" you pointed out here. It's sometimes hard to figure out what to do when encountering one of these "defective" AFDs. A good example is this AFD. At the time I encountered it the "deletes" outnumbered the "keeps" despite the obviously reliable sources provided by Grsz. If I were to have punched it "keep" like I was tempted to do, it's very likely I would be defending my "supervote" at DRV but just like above, I !voted instead and that made closing it easier on king of hearts. Since you relisted it I'll assume you saw the same thing I did so I wouldn't have blamed you much if you decided to !vote after relisting it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality of discussion at AFD is as bad as I have ever seen it and the sourcing is very rarely properly analysed and discussed =- despite the fact that this is the key to assessing notability. That's why I relisted it because the sources proffered hadn't been reviewed and so many of the delete votes were worthless metoos. If you look at WT:AFD I already raised a thread about it and I'm very ambivalent about closing admins reviewing sources themselves because of the of taking a position and supervoting. Coming back to the point of this tread though, I have explained why I think relisting is an administrative action, pointed to the relevant policy that supports my position and gone on at length about why I think you shouldn't vote after relisting something. I don't really see the point going on and on about it, but, at the very least, can you agree that I have some logic to my argument and undertake to avoid giving nayseyers any excuses to misunderstand your motives in future? Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of slender man?

ummm you sorta deleted the slender man page....... why? if this has already been answered then i am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you click the link above that says "afd" you will see that there was a discussion about the fate of the article and there was a consensus that the subject doesn't meet our inclusion criteria at this time. Furthermore another version of this page using your spelling was also deleted as a result of this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm kinda new here but... Marble Hornets has 60 000+ viewers an episode. EverymanHYBRID varies, but gets up to 60 000 viewers. He's massively well-known on 4chan (especially on /x/), and has been parodied by both Neil Cicierga and Little Kuriboh, exposing him to an even larger fanbase. On fb, he's got in excess of 4000 friends (an acheivenment, as alt accounts rarely break the thousand, people tend to join groups/pages for the person instead instead). What more notability do you require? 2birds1stone (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In the case of an urban myth (such as the Slender Man), shouldn't widespread existance of the myth, and the large variety of amatuer authors/directors jumping on 'his' bandwagon be evidence enough in favour of existance and notability? There is also a fairly comprehensive KnowYourMeme article, I'm not sure how reliable you would consider that site, but it's one of the only places that looks at phenomona such as the Slender Man Mythos... I'm currently looking for analysis of the myth from more reliable sources, but it seems to be to recent for that? 2birds1stone (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Living Person - Roy Murphy

Dear Mr Ritzman,

I understand your reasoning for the deletion of 'Roy Murphy' as the two main sources of his work was down due to his transfer of servers(according to one of his blogs). If I rectify this now they're back online, adding more sources and adding descriptions of the other related works of notability I've been working on, could that justify bringing it back to life? He is a modern day hero and a person of great public interest, to myself and other programmers like me who have had the pleasure of working with him in the world of theoretical computer science.



Sergeypetrov79 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeypetrov79 (talkcontribs) 23:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a google news search and I'm afraid that the kind of sources we need to establish notability under the general notability guidelines still do not exist. Therefore, this has to stay deleted. However, if you still disagree and have some sources I missed then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Friends of the Five Creeks

Hello Ron Ritzman. I don't know you personally, but I know you are active in XfD, and you are very expereinced, which is why I'm coming to you for input. I nominated a local organization for merge (and possible deletion) not too long after it's creation, not our of some personal vandetta, but because I just can't see how it is notable. It only gets 18 google hits and 71 news hits (75% of both the ghits and news hits come from a local periodical in Berkely). The references in the article are mostly from blogs, or other local organizations that carry a little blurb about the org, or include it in a listing. The organization was the topic of one article in the San Fransico Chronicle, but that is really the extent of the notability, and I've never known that to be enough to really establish notability. The article says that the organization's main contibution has been restoring part of creek alongside a mall parking lot. The article is well formatted, admittedly, and I have nothing against the authors, but I have suffered quite a bit for this article. I would just like you to take a look at it and let me know if organizations of this size acutally are notable and if perhaps I'm mistaken.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I might take a closer look at this later but for future AFDs, if you wish to revise your nomination statement the best way to do it is to strike through the original text you wish to revise and then add an amendment after your nomination statement. (or just make a comment inline). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And I'm willing to do that now. I'll just revert to what I had previously and then add a comment.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't get around to taking a closer look at this until it was "next on the list" of AFDs to close and I had to punch it "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi Ron,

Please expand on your reason for not deleting Accelerated PSO.

As noted in my two posts on its talk page my reasons for proposing its deletion were mainly that there are thousands of such variants to particle swarm optimization (see e.g. Google Scholar) and the proper place for listing a representative few of those are in the main article, particle swarm optimization. I'm supposedly an expert in the field and I can't readily think of any PSO variant that would merit its own stand-alone article on Wikipedia. A reference to the source for Accelerated PSO has also already been included in the main article, particle swarm optimization, see under the author 'Yang'. Furthermore, the quality of the article Accelerated PSO is poor and it was posted by a couple of single-purpose accounts, thus suggesting the intent was quick promotion rather than encyclopedic-grade contributions.

I am not trying to harass the authors in question (I don't know him/her/them), I am merely concerned that having such articles could bloat Wikipedia with low-grade articles on un-notable topics that detract attention from the main encyclopedic-grade articles.

Recently I proposed another similar article for deletion, I believe it was called something like Repulsive particle swarm optimization, which was a leftover from the early days of Wikipedia. That article was deleted.


Optimering (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the talk page and I didn't see a reason for deletion based on our inclusion guidelines (see WP:GNG), just your annoyance that nobody had responded to your merge/redirect suggestion. We don't delete articles just because somebody doesn't like them or thinks that they are of "poor quality". If you still feel that the article should be deleted then you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. If you do then take into account that most of us are not "experts on the subject" when you make your argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You are being presumptuous when you write I was annoyed, I was merely stating the fact that noone had replied, and given the single-purpose nature of the accounts that created the article it seemed likely that noone would ever reply. I have now tried nominating the article for deletion using WP:AFD as you suggest but I cannot work the interface of that page. I am also a bit baffled that you make rulings either for or against deletion of an article when you have no expertise on the subject, why not just let another administrator with a better understanding of the subject matter make the decision? Since I do not want to waste any more of my time over that article I will refrain from participating further in this discussion and hope you will insert it on WP:AFD or whatever is necessary to reach proper consensus. Thanks. Optimering (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I might quickly add that if you need a WP rule that would justify deletion, look at e.g. WP:Content forking which is clearly applicable here. Optimering (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok I sent the article to AFD and have also informed both the computer science and mathematics wikiprojects. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fereshta Samah

I have absolutely no idea, I must have hit rollback without realizing it. Sorry about that. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok no problem. Personally I think they put that rollback button in too many places like on watchlists. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Louis Werner

I just realized, when looking at its history, that this article has been hacked to shreds. Can you revert it to the prior best version, or should we selectively add back in some of the information? Bearian (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems it was done by User:Imfromqueens. He has done this to quite a few similar articles before prodding them. I'm not sure about reverting back because he was right about most of the text lacking inline citations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMullen-Booth Road

Can you also tag the second page nominated on this AfD, County Road 611 (Pinellas County, Florida)? --AdmrBoltz 02:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


I am not quite sure why this page was deleted.Smylonylon was a store in New York City from 1995 to 2002.Fashion designers from Muccia Prada to Tom Ford personally shopped there,famous models,,musicians,artist and actors all shopped there and gleaned ideas from the store.It has documentation in the press and televison and was the start of several fashion and music trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because there was a consensus to do so in this AFD discussion. It was decided that there were not multiple reliable sources to establish notability (see our general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for companies). If you feel that this decision was incorrect and that such sources do indeed exist then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Candy Butchers deletion

Where is the discussion located/did I propose deletion correctly? Wikkitywack (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The PROD's still on the article but you didn't use an edit summary. The only thing I did was make a dummy edit in order to alert anybody who might have the article watchlisted that it has been proposed for deletion. There's no requirement that an edit summary must be used but it's the courteous thing to do, otherwise whoever has it watchlisted won't know that you have a problem with the article until their watchlist says it's been deleted.
If you install the twinkle tool, it can do the prod, the edit summary, and inform the article's creator in one step. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'm pretty new at deleting/merging articles, so I'm not sure I quite understand. Is this process at all similar to WP:RM, which I'm more familiar with? (i.e. I'm somewhat daunted by the relative complexity of this process/confused as to why it's less automatic than WP:RM. Btw, shouldn't a deletion proposal trigger someone's watchlist?) Wikkitywack (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess the main point is, how do I use an edit summary? (I thought that's what I was doing with my "the following concern" paragraph...) Wikkitywack (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Right above the "save page" button there's a single line text box, that's where you put the edit summary. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well... yes. I thought you meant some other kind of edit summary that would trigger its inclusion on the master "Articles for Deletion" page... because I can't find it there. So I guess that wasn't my question. When/how does it go to the AfD main page? Wikkitywack (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It won't go to AFD. We have two processes for non-speedy deletions. proposed deletion and articles for deletion. The former is for "non-controversial" deletions. You put the prod tag on the article and the article is deleted after 7 days. However, anybody, including the article's creator, can contest the deletion by removing the tag. That's what you did for Candy Butchers. The second is where we discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. That won't won't be needed here unless somebody removes the tag and you choose to nominate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Wikkitywack (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed the {{afd}} on Suspicious list (OARDEC).

I request its userification to User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-02/Suspicious list (OARDEC).

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The talk page too, if one existed. Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jerry D'Amigo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jerry D'Amigo. 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. Just to add, this deletion review is because of information that was never brought up during the discussion and not because I think you closed it wrong.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Fraser

I would like to request that the above article "Amanda Fraser" be undeleted. This article was deleted on 20th October 2010 due to issues with notability. Is it possible for the article to be reviewed or amended to include more links to notable, independent sources? Regarding notability, the artists work has been mentioned in at least one mainstream newspaper, and since October has been listed with several independent galleries. I wasn't sure if I should make this request here on your talk page, or go straight to deletion review, sorry if this is not the right place. Ameliakw (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true then I'm afraid that the subject still does not pass WP:N which requires "multiple" coverage sources. However, if you still disagree you are welcome to make your case at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Valery Nikolayevsky

Mr. Ritzman, would you please restore the Wikipedia-Page Valery Nikolayevsky? Don't put shame on your name. (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss this one with Cirt who closed AFD2. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon

Thank you for closing the afd as a keep. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

About a writer-dissident

The article was standing for 6 years. You are chasing the russian writer and dissident! -- 9:31, 17 February 2011 (CET)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle at Donna (2012 film)

Per discussion at the AFD, can this be userfied to User:Freelance-writer-editor/workspace/Miracle at Donna? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ron. I hope being able to work in a userspace will benefit this editor. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mobile home park

Hello Ron, if you would, could you tell me if this is the correct format, for adding a mobile home park to wikipedia, also the scene of a horrific murder suicide that has devistated the area, and widely written and talked about on multiple media forums. I used this mobile home park as a template, does it look ok for me to follow in regards to the way it is constructed, and notability. This is not what I am uploading, I just want to know if this looks ok, relative to format, and is an existing Wikipedia article: Forks Mobile Home Park, Washington Thank you, if you could get back to me when you get a chance. Thanks, Dave (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)DavidkhadDave (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Man Murray page deletion

I was saddened to see the Old Man Murray entry deleted.

What can I do to convince you to put it back up? If it needs work, I will try to do what needs done in order for the page to meet Wikipedia standards.

The Old Man Murray website was an institution in video game culture. I believe it would be a significant loss to Wikipedia to delete its page altogether.

Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdcase1 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done per my closing statement. Note that this will not bar a renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page for 091 Labs?

Hi Ron, Could I get a copy of Talk:091 Labs, which was recently deleted? I'd saved a copy of the article but not yet the publication list which I'd just contributed to that Talk page. Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Talk page temporarily restored. Let me know when you have what you need. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruthless article

Hi, I noticed you recently deleted the Ruth Pineda page and I was just wondering why you did so. I had a reference, but most of the information came directly from her manager. I can get more online references if that would help. She is on television every week on TLC's LA Ink. Would it even be possible to bring the page back or would I have to start from scratch again? The Hyphen 01:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hyphen (talkcontribs)

Still needs more sources. Since it's a BLP I won't restore it to article space but I would be glad to incubate it for you so you can continue to work on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah if you could do that that would be great. thanks.The Hyphen 17:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hyphen (talkcontribs)
 Done Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Ruth_Pineda. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ketsugo jujutsu

Hi there. I see that the Ketsugo wiki page got removed (I think by you, ultimately), but can't figure out how to get to the source of the deleted article (I may wish to re-post to a private page so the information doesn't get lost). Can you help?

Thanks! — cyberbisson (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done User:Cyberbisson/Ketsugo jujutsu. However, it can't be left there forever. When you've done what you need to do let me know or put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Got it locally. Thanks. — cyberbisson (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Noor Aftab--- page deletion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raana.rizwan (talkcontribs) 05:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While the AFD in question would have benefited from more participation, the consensus to delete was clear. If you disagree or think that there are sources that weren't considered, you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ron, this is a really unusual situation. The article as created and nominated for AfD was a short autobio of a male journalist. It was input by Abdul Noor Aftab (talk) on 15 Feb, AfD'd the same day, and got delete !votes on the 15th and 16th. Then on the 18th Raana.rizwan (talk) rewrote it completely to be about a female investment banker. This is not obvious in the edit history because the edit summary for the rewrite was only "(Put in links, added dates and work experience!)", and the AfD template was left in place until the 20th, when it was removed but immediately replaced.
So what you deleted was a changeling, not the article that was AfD'd. IMO the new article is good enough to pass A7, and though I haven't checked out the references in detail probably good enough to pass an AfD. I think it should be restored, but pass the problem to you as the deleting admin. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I feel like a dumbass. Article restored from the point of Raana.rizwan,s first edit. Note that this does not prevent a new AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A deletion of a page- (you did not delete though) a question for an editor

Hi Ron!

I'm sorry for bothering you, but I had a question regarding a page that was created and then deleted by another wikipedia editor. A nice email was sent via the talk page to this editor as soon as the page was marked for 'speedy deletion'. In the email there were a couple questions, as well as, an offer to provide more information where needed. Unfortunately there was no response to that email and the page was down within 24 hours. It was for an Actress named Bree Michael Warner. Sources referenced were "IMDB", TV, Fandango and USA Today among others. The only note that was provided with the deletion was that "IMDB was not a reliable source"...and I have to ask the question, since when? I work as a manager in the Entertainement industry and IMDB is the only source we use for stats and information. It is incredibly reliable. In fact I had checked against some other pages for actors that were on par with "Bree Michael Warner" and some ONLY referenced IMDB. It seemed as though this might have been subjective opinion and not the facts of Wikipedia policy? Or perhaps there was a conflict of interest with the editor of the page? However that was not stated. I happened to see your name attached to the deletion of another page and thought I may seek your expertise with Wikipedia policy since my original talk questions were ignored. Sorry for troubling you. I really do appreciate your input. I beleive the deletion was erroneous and wonder what if anything can be done. How does one find an impartial editor? I'm assuming I am not able to write the page as I am affliated with this actress?

Thank you for your help!! RMPhillips (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This has to be discussed with the deleting admin. (which is Ged UK) The article's creator already has and the deleting admin has offered to userfy it. There it can be worked on and later moved into article space. However, I would strongly suggest that both you and User:Breewarner review our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. As far as an impartial editor, I might have some ideas so I'll get back to you on that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And it would be helpful for them both to review the cautions at WP:TOOSOON#Actors and the advice at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Userfied User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Bree Michael Warner. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what can be done and report back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliyahu Federman

Hey Ron, I created the article Eliyahu Federman and it was tagged Afd on Feb. 12, 2011. The Afd discussion resulted in 3 keeps (including mine). According to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion an Afd discussion is supposed to close within 7 days. It has already been over two weeks. Can you please advice on whether I need to do anything? What the delay is? Should I be asking someone else? I'm still relatively new to this. Sincerely, JohnMelder (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't closed because the nominator didn't transclude it onto the log page for the 12th. I corrected that and relisted the debate. I'll keep an eye on it for a few days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Susanne Kessler

Hello, I'm an art historian from Berlin and just starting to write articles for wikipedia. I created three pages (Thorsten Goldberg, Susanne Kessler, Elmar Hess) and I'm wondering why the articles should miss the guidelines. All three artists are well-known and made an important impact to the society and are well recognized. Please let me know how to proceed in writing for wikipedia. Best wishes, Leda47

After talking to bender (wikipedia author) he was not sure about the content so he let me know that art historians have to check the input. Mr Ritzman could you pls let me know why you deleted the article about Susanne Kessler?

Hello again, it's been quite a while that I created the sites on Thorsten Goldberg, Elmar Hess, Susanne Kessler. How long will the proceedings take to be valid of verifiability? Best wishes, Leda47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leda47 (talkcontribs) 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved Susanne Kessler out of article space because it's an unsourced biography of a living person. You can find a link to it here. Once it's sourced with inline citations it can be moved back into article space. The other two articles have not been deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ron, pls let me know what unsourced means. Do I need to find more articles about the artist? THX! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leda47 (talkcontribs) 07:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Ron, I deleted the quotation of the artist and put some more relevant articles to the site. could you pls check the status? hopefully i got it right now. best-- (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced" means that the article doesn't have citations (preferably inline citations) to back up the text of the article. This is necessary so that the information can be verified. A good example of a "sourced" BLP is this article. Notice how those little blue numbers in the text point to citations that can be checked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Creative artists who have served time in prison - deletion of 21 February 2011

Hello, Ron. I just discovered that an article I created and tended from time to time was deleted by you the other day, and I would like to reopen the discussion on that page so I may have an opportunity to respond regarding its purpose and value.

First, the discussants appear to assume a negatively critical point of view in the article, yet there is no basis for that conclusion. For instance, the comment, "If you're going to sling mud, make sure to tell us where you got the mud." The article makes no judgement of the persons in the list. It is not a "gotcha" list.

Second, the sourcing of the list is an easily corrected issue. In most if not all cases, the fact of their incarceration is explicitly noted on the persons Wikipedia page, is often well known, and is frequently an important part of their biography and their art. Shouldn't the sourcing of that fact in the biography be sufficient? It seems redundant to require sourcing in two separate places.

Third, my rationale in creating this list was to draw out a noteworthy theme that emerges when reading about people who are writers, musicians and others who make creative contributions to the world's culture: a great number of them have been imprisoned, in proportions that are surprising. I think this list says a great deal about the human institution of incarceration and its uses by the powerful against people who stand a bit outside of the typical. While there are some people on the list who were imprisoned for violent crimes, many more were imprisoned for their art.

Far from being pointless or ill-defined, a list of creative artists who have served time in prison is at least as relevant as the List of books banned by governments, isn't it?

I agree the article could benefit from added context and improved sourcing. Why wasn't there a more sustained effort to request improvements to the article, to fit it within the BLP guidelines, and so on? It is disappointing to me that the editorial process here appears to have defaulted almost immediately to deletion rather than improvement. That kind of editorial process seems out of step with the spirit of Wikipedia and more in line with the kinds of regimes that imprison creative people and ban their books.

I am hopeful you will see it worthwhile to undelete or recreate the page so it can be edited and improved.


Jmccrory (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The big difference between this list and List of books banned by governments as that books are not living persons. I'm sorry but the consensus to delete was clear, it's a BLP minefield. Another possible issue is that of undue weight as there are no criteria for how notable a particular event has to be for a subject to be included on that list. Someone might find out via a primary source that Joe Famous Person once spent a few hours in the can for not paying a speeding ticket when he was 20 and slap his name on that list.
However, if you still disagree and think you have a case for inclusion you are welcome to have it reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me address your 2 points: BLP issues and the threshold for inclusion.
I disagree that the page represents a BLP minefield. At my last check, the majority of the persons listed on this page were dead. I would guess about 1 in 5 were living. Yet even if everyone on this page were living, their incarceration in prison is a fact that is part of an easily verifiable public legal record.
This page is explicitly limited to persons who have served time in prison, as opposed to jail. That means the persons have actually been sentenced and not merely arrested. Their guilt was decided in a court of law and that decision is part of a verifiable public record -- indeed, what could be more verifiable than the decision of a court?
Of course, the sources cited as evidence for facts in Wikipedia are more frequently news articles that are on the web, not court decisions. But these are not allegations being gossiped about, these are decisions made by a court of law that are being reported. The concern about libel of living persons does not come into play, as it would be extremely unusual for such a fact as a person's incarceration in prison to be a matter of dispute.
Rather than delete the page, it is more appropriate to delete individual persons from the list who are added without any citation of a reliable source. I suggest that approach would be more rational, for it would be silly to make this a list only of dead people out of fear of BLP issues.
Regarding the threshold for inclusion, I feel the notability of an event, or lack thereof, is not a relevant issue, and in fact should not be part of the decison-making process of who belongs on this page. Prison is prison, and who are we to decide that a person's incarceration in prison was more or less notable? Rather than leave this element of inclusion to subjective judgment, it should be determined based on the facts as recorded in the verifiable public record.
When I created this page I chose to create it as a list-style page rather than a category page so there would be a means for citing sources or providing evidence. There are plenty of category pages in Wikipedia, such as Category:American vegans, which offer no citations or proof of their claims, and presumably rest on the sources for the article they link to. Someone could just as easily create a category of "people who have never been in my kitchen." Unlike those category pages, this list of persons can be remedied.
I will admit there may be some fuzziness in the definition of who is a creative artist, but I think that is a judgment which can be reasonably discussed and resolved on a case by case basis. For example, Martha Stewart is a writer. She served time in prison. Should she be on the list? My answer is no, because she is not primarily known for her artistic contributions, she is known as a magazine editor and publisher, media magnate, and television personality. She makes her living as a businesswoman, not as an artist.
In sum, I hear all the concerns administrators have with this page. But I hope you will agree those concerns are easily addressable, and deletion is neither necessary nor should be preferred. Deleting this page was a disproportionate course of action for dealing with issues that a little editing could solve.
Why don't you resurrect this page in a way I can edit it to add at least two citations for each person in the list before I return it to publication?
Jmccrory (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ion Filotti

You have deleted the article Ion Filotti which I had posted on Wikipedia, after a very short discussion of which I was not aware and I could therefore not defend. I do not want the article to be reinstated, but I would like to recover the information for my own use. Is there any way in which I can recover the text or is it forever lost?Afil (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to email you the contents if you wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)



you deleted the antenarrative page

I am not sure why you did this

Can you locate the original page so I can retrieve the contents?


David Boje

575-532-1693 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboje (talkcontribs) 01:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because there was a clear consensus to do so. If you click on the link that says "afd2" above you can read it. I'll be glad to email you the contents of the article if you wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, following the deletion discussed above, would you be so kind as to move the contents of the deleted article to my Sandbox (I don't have the buttons on en-wiki so I don't even know what the content was)? I may look at it and correct it (I am an organizational studies scholar familiar with antenarratives). I feel a bit weird since the article was deleted after strong support for deletion from Snowded, whose voice influenced others, and I believe he might be Dave Snowden, whose works are strongly criticized by Boje. PS Be it not a trouble, please reply at my talk page :) Pundit|utter 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Jim Rome soundbite deletion??


Please explain to me why you deleted the Jim Rome "List of Soundbites" sub-section of the "Jim Rome Show" article. While it may not have fit Wiki's standards for citation and length...for those that know the show well, it was a funny page and great to refresh our memories on certain soundbites played on the show. I have been a fan of the show for over 10 years, and every once in a while I visit that section to remember some of the more memorable portions of the show. I won't pretend to be some Wiki expert like you, but you owe people an explanation...because Rome has a LOT of listeners (Clones)...


Matt Holland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbholland (talkcontribs) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do these people who commented here do not count somehow? –MuZemike 03:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :I'm not really a wiki expert myself and I very rarely ever delete an article unless the community tells me to. If you click the above link that says "afd" you will see a discussion that ran for 7 days with a unanimous consensus that the article should be deleted. If it weren't me it would have been some other admin as there was no other way it could have been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of T-Integration


First, let me apologize if I have put this request in the wrong place in the Wiki. I have tried to follow your directions. At 72 years old, I admit that sometimes I get a bit confused with the modern internet services. I think I am in the right place but not positive.

I developed T-Integration. The T-Integrator is documented in the 2003 Edition of The CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics: pp 2986. It is unique because it was developed with modern information theory not classical approximation theory. It is ideally suited to modern flight guidance and control systems (I consult with NASA on the COTS program as a SME on digital flight control systems).

I ask that you re-publish the deleted Wikipedia page on T-Integration. Rationale: It is a very useful numerical integration formula that contains classical integration formulas as special cases. Also, it can be tuned to linear system to be exact, not approximate (See Mathematical Modeling and Digital Simulation for Engineers and Scientists (Second Edition), published by Wiley Interscience, 1987, page 263 by Jon Michael Smith. It is unique in that, like a control system, it can be tuned to the problem it is trying to solve. It has two parameters, Phase and Gain, that are like the phase and gain filters in information systems. It sure did solve simulation problems we were trying to solve when simulating the Apollo flight guidance and control systems.

If I have broken some rules placing my material in the Wiki, please forgive me. It was not intentional.

Warm Regards,

Jon Michael Smith Jon Michael Smith (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No you have not broken any rules but the consensus in the AFD discussion was clear that the subject is not yet notable enough for an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Its not the value of the content, its the degree to which it is cited is the criteria for inclusion... I would argue that any numerical integrator that contains classical integrators as special cases is worth including in the Wiki. When I write books the material is peer reviewed by subject matter experts as to the value of the contribution. I would argue that getting published by John Wiley and Sons Publishers (See my references) should be sufficient to be included in the Wiki. Can you revert back to a very early version of the T-Integrator that was acceptable to Wiki when it was first included in the Wiki? Jon Michael Smith Jon Michael Smith (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sharpe Characters

Hello I'm not familiar with what happens after the AFD and a result consensus to merge. Who merges them? (Michael Hogan (fictional character), Daniel Hagman, Sergeant Harris and Obadiah Hakeswill)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, any editor can but as I said, the suggested merge target for all of those AFDs does not yet exist so it would have to be created first. This can be discussed on the article's talk pages or at a relevant wikiproject. My only role here is to decide whether or not to push the delete button and there was no consensus for that to happen. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Methods in Ecology and Evolution page

Methods in Ecology and Evolution · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] Hello,

A page for Methods and Ecology and Evolution was created recently on Wikipedia but the history says it was deleted because the journal was not recognised enough as yet.

The journal has now been accepted for indexing in ISI (Thomson Reuters) - see

Could the deleted page be reinstated on this basis please? Alternatively could I start creating a new one?


Melly2000 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Mel

  •  Done I have restored the article, reopened the AFD and informed everybody who !voted there so they can revisit the discussion if they wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And this is why one !vote is still a valid AFD

This is proof of why one !vote is still a valid AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Man Murray (2nd nomination). This is the drama-fest filled with meatpuppets and personal attacks that I was expecting but didn't get with Portal of Evil's nomination and the first Old Man Murray nomination. As I suspected all along, these people had no intention of building an encyclopedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream video game media has picked up on your specific and wikipedia's general insanity. We're expecting the article to be undeleted later today based on the conversation in Lifebaka's user talk. Your continued abusive edits to anything involving Chet and Erik, also discussed on that page, should land you a block if there's any sort of functioning justice here. Entropy Stew (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why were you expecting a "drama-fest filled with meatpuppets and personal attacks" from either of the earlier nominations, if you don't mind my asking?
Incidentally, Wikipedia policy states: "The term meatpuppet may be considered derogatory and should be used with care." If it's not too much to ask, could you maybe tone down the m-bombs just a bit? Thanks. Shecky Fragbaum (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
My point is proven. The drama doesn't end even after the discussion is closed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Florendo M. Visitacion

I was looking to do an article on Florendo M. Visitacion. Upon starting it, I saw that it was deleted. I am writing to you so that you can undelete it and I can progress with working on it. I have found a few things including a NY Times article on his life.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talkcontribs) 08:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because there was a consensus to do so. If you click on the link above that says "afd" you can read the discussion. If you have additional sources that you wish considered then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you send it here. The old article so that I can further develop it prior to sending it deletion review. . Thank youCrazyAces489 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Browne Relist

It is not clear to me why the Library's Director's page was delisted, and why now. We are not well versed in Wiki conventions. Without a greater understanding of the Wiki process, it is very hard to decipher what is required to relist. We can provide more sources on Mr. Browne's accomplishments. We can provide more sources on his Library (International Children's Digital Library)and its continued recognition as the world's largest and the most significant of its kind from organizations such as the ALA (American Library Association) and IBBY (International Board on Books for Young People). We can provide more sources on his writings as well as his role in building. Can you help us understand how we can influence the delisting process? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I strongly urge you to read our conflict of interest guidelines. As far as the article goes, I deleted it because there was a consensus to do so. You can view the discussion by clicking "afd" above. If you have additional sources to be considered then you are welcome to file a deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Antenarrative Page Deletion was instigated by a competing Theorist - Davd Snowden

Dear Ron Ritzman,

  I have read through the rules for deletion of web pages on Wikipedia.

I believe that competing storytelling hosts of pages on Wikipedia have conspired to delete my page, and I hope you are an unwitting participant in this. I therefore introduce the following in evidence, and ask you reconsider

I also traced the history. The initial call for deletion was made by Dave Snowden:

"Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC) • * Delete - Agree with Snowded. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)"

A colleague did an IP search and 'Snowded' is in fact Dave Snowden.

I believe this deletion initiative to be an act of retaliation by a colleague who is attempting to exorcise competing conceptions of storytelling, of which 'antenarrative' is an established domain. It is retaliation for a review of Snowden's work that I published in a top-tier academic journal.

See -- Boje, D. M. 2006d. The Dark Side of Knowledge Reengineering Meets Narrative/Story. Organization: The Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society. Vol. 13, No. 5, 739-745

Boje's Critique of Snowden's chapter in an academic journal publication Snowden's objection to the 'antenarrative page' is expressed as follows: "* Delete per nomination, without third party evidence of use/adoption and some balancing criticism this reads like a promotional piece; other related articles look to be extracts from Boje. Full disclosure, I know of Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)"

The page was not backed up, but as I recall, it was indeed backed up by third party evidence, i.e. the published theory and empirical articles on the topic of antenarrative:

Here is the published work on 'antenarrative.

Barge, J.K. (2004) `Antenarrative and Managerial Practice' , Communication Studies 55(1): 106-27.

Collins, D. & Rainwater, K. 2005. "Managing change at Sears: a sideways look at a tale of corporate transformation". Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18, No. 1: 16-30.

Dalcher, D. & Drevin, L. (2003). "Learning from information systems failures by using narrative and antenarrative methods". Proceedings of SAICSIT, pages 137-142.

Eriksen, M. & Colleagues, 2006. “Antenarratives about Leadership and Gender in the U.S. Coast Guard.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 5(4), 162-173.

Eriksen, M., Van Echo, K., Harmel, A., Kane, J., Curran, K., Gustafson, G., & Schults, R. 2005. “Conceptualizing and Engaging in Organizational Change as an Embodied Experience within a Practical Reflexivity Community of Practice: Gender Performance at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 4 (1), 75-80.

Grow, Jean. M. 2008. The gender of branding: early Nike women's advertising a feminist antenarrative. Women's Studies in Communication, September 22.

Vickers, M. H. (2005). Illness, work and organisation: Postmodern perspectives, antenarratives and chaos narratives for the reinstatement of voice. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, 3(2), pp. 1-15.

Yolles, M. (2007). The dynamics of narrative and antenarrative and their relation to story. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 20, No. 1: 74 – 94.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. Forthcoming. On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science. Published online in Articles in Advance, November 30, 2010.

Here is my own work on the topic of antenarrative, which by way of full disclosure is a theory and method that I invented.

Boje, D.M. (2001a). Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2001b). Flight of Antenarrative in Phenomenal Complexity Theory, Tamara, Storytelling Organization Theory. September 20th, paper to honor Professor Hugo Letiche and his work on Phenomenal Complexity Theory, for the September 24th and 25th Conference on Complexity and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar (Korte Nieuwstraat 6) in the old center of Utrecht, Netherlands.

Boje, D. M. (2001c). “Antenarrating, Tamara, and Nike Storytelling.” Paper prepared for presentation at “Storytelling Conference” at the School of Management; Imperial College, 53 Prince’s Gate, Exhibition Road, London, July 9th, 2001. On line at

Boje, D. M. (2002). "Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre". Plenary presentation to 5th International Conference on Organizational Discourse: From Micro-Utterances to Macro-Inferences, Wednesday 24th - Friday 26th July (London).

Boje. D. M. 2005. Empire Reading of Manet's Execution of Maximilian: Critical Visual Aesthetics and Antenarrative Spectrality. Tamara Journal. Vol 4 (4): 118-134. Boje, D. M. (2007a). Chapter 13 Living Story: From Wilda to Disney, pp.330-354. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a New Methodology. Edited by Jean Clandinin, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2007b). "The Antenarrative Cultural Turn in Narrative Studies" in Mark Zachry & Charlotte Thralls (Eds.) Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations.

Boje, D. M. 2007c. Globalization Antenarratives. Pp. 505-549, Chapter 17 in Albert Mills, Jeannie C. Helms-Mills & Carolyn Forshaw (Eds). Organizational Behavior in a Global Context. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Boje, D. M. (2008a). Storytelling Organizations, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2010). Towards a postcolonial storytelling theory that interrogates tribal peoples’ Material-Agential-Storytelling ignored in management and organization studies. Under review, and working paper available from

Boje (forthcoming). Antenarrative in management research. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research: London (2,500 words). Accepted 2006. Draft available at

Boje, D. M. & Baskin, K. (2010). Dancing to the Music of Story. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press. See Chapter 1 on complexity.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Shaping the Future of Storytelling in Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook. London: Routledge (release date is March 2011).

Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2002). Enron Whodunit? Ephemera. Vol 2(4), pp. 315-327.

Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2003). Life Imitates Art: Enron’s Epic and Tragic Narration. Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 17 (1): 85-125.

Boje, D. M., Rosile, G.A., Durant, R.A. & Luhman, J.T. 2004 "Enron Spectacles: A Critical Dramaturgical Analysis". Special Issue on Theatre and Organizations edited by Georg Schreyögg and Heather Höpfl, Organization Studies, 25(5):751-774.

Boje, D. M.; Rosile, G. A.; & Gardner, C. L. 2007. "Antenarratives, Narratives and Anaemic Stories" Chapter 4, pp. 30-45, Storytelling in Management, Editors: Ms. Nasreen Taher and Ms. Swapna Gopalan, Publisher: The Icfai University Press, India, First Edition: 2007 (Note: was based upon Paper presented in Showcase Symposium, Academy of Management,. Mon Aug 9 2004 in New Orleans).

Smith, William L.; Boje, David M.; & Melendrez, Kevin D, (2010) "The financial crisis and mark-to-market accounting: An analysis of cascading media rhetoric and storytelling", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 3, pp.281 – 303.


Just for the record I did not initiate the deletion, I supported the nominator and declared an interest as is proper. The suggestion that this was an act of retaliation is a personal attack without any foundation. Boje is now editing his own article on Wikipedia and including original research - one of the main reasons the anti-narrative article was deleted in the first place --Snowded TALK 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not claim that you initiated the deletion, but that you supported it and when mentioning "disclosure" you described your professional link to the topic, rather than the fact that you are in academic disagreement with Boje and are criticized by him (as in the given link). I'm not judging the deletion, I don't know what was in the article, I just think it is weird that you spoke of "full disclosure" in a way which suggested authority and hid the obvious personal disagreement. Pundit|utter 19:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure who you are Pundit, the accusation that I initiated the discussion came from Boje so I have no idea what claim you are referencing. Boje has been running round wikipedia today running a conspiracy theory that I am trying to delete his articles which is simply not the case. When someone else proposed the deletion of one article I supported it, but made sure I declared that I knew him and was involved in the field. One vote on a RfD hardly counts as a conspiracy. --Snowded TALK 20:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, apparently I acted independently in the same time - as I [wrote to Ron, I find it unusual that you wanted to make a "full disclosure" and instead of admitting that you and Boje are at odds you just claimed your professional competence. I am not suggesting any conspiracy, I'm just saying that if your vote was just one of a couple, and at least one other editor said "no" following your recommendation, this is weird, is all. Pundit|utter 01:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As it happens I have only referenced Boje favourably although rarely, his work is tangential to mine. He may think there is a conflict, but thats David, as other people in the field will tell you. The problem we have (and had on multiple articles yesterday) is that as an editor here he writes articles as if he was writing his own autobiography (the Boje article) and a a chapter in one of his books on the article he created and before that on the deleted article. He does not understand the need for third party sources, you might want to try and help him there. He also (see above) doesn't check his facts and breaks WP:NPA as a result. --Snowded TALK 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Look, the problem with this AfD is that you claimed "full disclosure", but instead of telling everybody that your works are quite heavily criticized by Boje, you said that you have professional knowledge in the area (which, as you would probably admit, rather adds to than deducts weight from your argument). Clearly at least one editor followed your vote. I don't know the content of the article, I don't have admin rights on en-wiki. If I get the content into my sandbox I may (or may not) be able to straighten the article up. I am not saying that Boje does or does not violate NPA, I don't say he does or does not use sources (even though, some of his books and articles are clearly satisfying validity criteria, but he shouldn't write on himself, that's obvious). Pundit|utter 08:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I voted in an AfD which I did not initiate, another editor voted the same way saying that they agreed with me. That is normal on an AfD and does not imply that they "followed" or were influenced. My own vote said "per nominator" in the same way . I went beyond what I needed to in saying that I knew Boje and was involved in the field; if there had been any contention (and there was none) I would have expected by vote to be discarded in consequence by any closing admin. Boje has heavily criticised so many people that its hardly notable its probably a right of passage. Nor is it relevant here as the issue in the article was not the subject but the lack of any third party sources, in effect it was a Boje article not a WIkipedia article. What you should do is make a case for the RfD to be reversed rather than wasting everyone's time here (Sorry Ron) --Snowded TALK 10:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you raise the fact that you did not initiate the AfD - I'm not saying you did, so it is not the point. I have a pretty good grasp on what is typical during AfDs and I assure you that if somebody, who is perceived as knowledgeable about some topic expresses their opinion, it does matter. One of the disputants explicitly said that they follow your vote. You wrote verbatim Full disclosure, I know of Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative - clearly you claimed expertise and in the same time you left the conflict unsaid. Your "defense" of Boje's critique of your works by saying that you're not the only one is quite strange: the simple fact is that you have every reason to be impartial about Boje and yet in your so-called "full disclosure" decided not to reveal it. I'm not saying that you acted in bad faith, but I must admit that while initially I only expressed my surprise that for some reason you decided not to make a real disclosure, after your ardent denial I am, well, surprised quite more. Per "third party sources" - the publications of Boje are quoted hundreds of times (the top one at 833 quotations, which is incredibly high). Straightening antenarrative and David Boje articles is a a no-brainer for anyone even remotely interested in storytelling in organization studies. Even more am I surprised that, while claiming your expertise (which, I believe, is relatively justified) you still had not decided simply to improve the articles. I am going to do that and that's why I asked Ron for a copy of the deleted text into my sandbox. Pundit|utter 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear case for the inclusion of Boje's work in wikipedia articles, that does not mean there is a case for a specific article on antinarrative and there was no case for that article. If you want to work on it fine, happy to look at the results. If you are now asking why I did not seek to improve the articles well that is simple. I don't deal with content where I have expertise and hold a partial position. I don't think that is proper and I think Boje should stay out as well and leave it to people whose position is neutral. What I do object to is the clear implication of bad faith (despite your protestations) in your comments and the clear failure to follow WP:NPA in Boje's various accusations on multiple pages of a conspiracy theory. This idea that one academic criticising another produces some vendetta or is particularly worthy of note seems strange to me. Disagreements happen from time to time and the last email I have from Boje, well after his article was published, is an invitation to come and talk next time I am in New Mexico. Until yesterday I hadn't thought about it for the best part of decade, especially as the criticism turned out to be based on a complete misreading of an article by myself. What does seem to have happened is that Boje and other people associated with Tamara (such as yourself, undeclared so far) have whipped themselves up into a fury over some imagined conspiracy over a minor RfD on a very poor article. I never had much respect for post-modernism in the first place, its reduced now. I'm not wild about the off wiki canvassing which is going on either, but lets see what happens there. --Snowded TALK 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am also occasionally picky about my Wikipedia articles and I do realize that article clean-up is sometimes boring. I am not promising to clean-up antenarratives, since I still don't know the content of the removed article. I am not assuming your bad faith - I am expressing my surprise that you claimed "full disclosure" and didn't make it, and yet you decide not to address this issue for some reason. I don't understand why in a discussion with me you refer to some supposed conspiracy theories - I don't believe I gave you any reason for that. Chill out - I'm not defending the article, I'm not saying it was good, I don't even know the content for Pete's sake :) For all I know it probably did not adhere to the standards and was poorly sourced. Your respect or disrespect for post-modernism seems to me (forgive me if I'm wrong) just a bit irrelevant to our talk here, I honestly don't care whether you love it or loathe it. I am unaware of what kind of off-wiki canvassing you're referring to, but if there is a wild mob preparing torches and forks, rest assure I'm not coming. I took liberty to make a little clean-up on Dave Snowden article (our discussion here made me read it), I hope you don't mind. It would be good if you could add a bit more sources (in the discussion page or in my talk page, for example, if you do not want to make bigger edits in the article itself, to avoid violation of auto). Cheers! Pundit|utter 16:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly the "we will have to look at your article" is the essence of the off wiki emails. Otherwise I'll let my earlier comments stand for themselves. --Snowded TALK 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, you may want to familiarize yourself with this useful guideline and follow it freely in your future discussions. I find your suggestions as disturbing as they are false, I was not asked to "look at your article", nor have I read such a suggestion anywhere. Neither have I received even a single email about you, Boje, or antenarratives on wiki. I'm not even defending the deleted article (I don't know the content, but I do believe that it probably was not adhering to standard, was improperly sourced, etc.). My main impulse to comment on your role in this AfD was observing that an experienced editor (and a rollbacker) claims "full disclosure" and yet hides being in academic dispute. This is the first time I read the Wikipedia article about you and since I found some little furry things and unverified sources, I corrected it and commented in the talk page. Any editor disagreeing with my changes may discuss them there. You are 100% right, your earlier comments do stand for themselves, just as does your lack of explanation for the surprising omission of the fact that you're criticized heavily by Boje in your so-called "full disclosure" (really, I'd even accept your saying that you had been simply unaware of this critique, but your persistent lack of addressing this issue and diversions into "so many others are attacked by Boje" do not really make this look any better). If you believe that my edits to Dave Snowden article are wrong - point to the mistakes, rather then imply I was a part of some mysterious movement aimed at you (look who's talking conspiracy theory now). Pundit|utter 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well we will have to agree to disagree, I have never seen so much noise created over a single Rfd vote in my life, nor so much read into so little. The fact that the noise on and off wiki comes from a highly connected group is a part of that --Snowded TALK 19:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I find your lack of (good) faith disturbing. I can only again repeat that I am not an elephant. I was not asked to act, I am not aware of any off-wiki movement against you, and I cut myself from any threats you say you're receiving. Seriously, that's disturbing (but ok, if you are receiving threats I can understand that whoever discusses anything related to the case may be perceived by you as the threating one him/herself). Pundit|utter 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ron, in case you missed, Snowded's reply is probably to my comment in your discussion. Pundit|utter 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I'm deleting this comment, as I just noticed that this is a reply to a post by Boje above (silly me, I know). Pundit|utter 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Academic Sports League

Hi Ron. I was wondering why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Sports League as "no consensus". The only person who "voted" to retain the content as a standalone page was the creator of the page. In opposition, you had Mandsford, Starblind and myself who all made what I thought were at least fairly strong, considered, policy-based arguments to delete the page (Mandsford's comment to transfer some of the content not withstanding; that could have been accomplished even if the AFD had been closed as delete). NW (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that AFD is not a "vote" but the keep/delete count is not meaningless. Yes I saw Mansford's comment about the subject not meeting GNG but he seemed to be arguing for a "move" followed by a "redirect" (which would leave 2 redirects?) Aside from the nom, only Starblind was saying that the delete button should be pushed. With one "keep" !vote (even a week one from the article's creator) and after being listed on AFD for a month (which is far too long IMHO) I just didn't see a consensus to do anything. However, per WP:NPASR I wouldn't be opposed to a speedy renomination even though I didn't say so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind if I alerted all contributors of the first AFD to the new one? NW (Talk) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I would.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclosed AfD

Hi there, you seem to be the man to go to in relation to AfDs :) Anyway, I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tevita Folau seems to have been open for 18 days without being relisted even once. So I was wondering two things, 1) could you please close it? and 2) how does something like this happen? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It was never transcluded onto a log page so I decided to give it a little more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok then, thanks for that. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)