User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 1

Hi, I'm Soccer5525 and I'm replying to your message about the speedy deletion of, "main menu". I'm sorry about creating that article. It was really just an accident. I was trying to make that page one of my subpages, but clearly I did something totally wrong. I'm really sorry. It was a complete accident. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:162.39.129.197, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Lightsup55 ( T | C

Note that this was an isolated bug in Huggle that neither I nor a developer were able to duplicate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

--with seemingly no other response other than tagging my new page as "{{

That took you all of three seconds after creation to interpose that internal links. Give it a few more minutes. Seasalt (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt it eventually would. With all the drive by creations I see doing new page patrol, I have to add something before marking it patrolled as it's hard to tell who the experienced editors are. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Check it now and see if it is ok, and whether all else is in order. Usually do motorcycle or classic car articles, but in this case a sufferer of condition described, so no exoerience of editing medical articles. Do u remove internal links tag or am i permitted self assessment?Seasalt (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Index has not caught up to entry. Seasalt (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to Polysexuality; you're a good citizen. Skoojal (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I'm sorry it's deleted too. My boss was having problems getting it up because it was being called "advertising" which we weren't trying to do so she had me put the info up and try again. Is there anything we can do? DaveRobert (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is try to get somebody not associated with your company to write it. (see

neutral point of view. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ron, I want to get it up but it's becoming too difficult. I don't see how stating what it is and who's in the original cast is advertising. I wrote it facts and cited sources. Thanks anyway for all your help. DaveRobert (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to

I did not mean it as a personal attack against Kurt, just as a parody of his vote (which is not the first time that's been done BTW, see here) I'm sorry that you feel that it was a personal attack as I didn't intend it to be. There was no "attack". However, if Kurt or anybody else views it as a personal attack, I'll change it and make an apology.

Also, was it necessary to use the template for this? A standard talk page message stating your position on this would have sufficed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Templating probably wasn't the best idea. I'll strike that. But I do think that it was unnecessary and would cause unnecessary drama. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for stepping on your edits. We were both editing at the same time and I got an edit conflict when I tried to save the page. I have updated to include your edits too. If I missed something, feel free to make whatever edits you feel are needed. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ron. Thanks for the heads up on the Roberta Flack duplicates. I don't know how I missed that. Oh, well. Anywho, I fixed the duplicates, and I deeply appreciate your welcoming. -KieferSuth1985Marx- Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moonlight? (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about Pine River-Backus School District. You make a valid point. I should have written something like "removed copyvio text and added link to district's website" in the edit summary. In general, when I see an article that is a copyvio, I prefer to remove the copyvio text to create a stub article than to ask for the article to be deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do the phrases "Cut it out, Ritzman" and "NANAE" mean anything to you? :) The name is awfully familiar. :) SirFozzie (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Man you scared me. Seeing the yellow box this morning I was certain someone was yelling at me for my first non admin AFD close. But yes, I wondered how long it would take for someone to make the NANAE connection after seeing my user page though earlier David Gerard did on Wiki-en.

Of course none of that Supertroll stuff will fly here due to

personal attack

. Both (as well as this reply perhaps) will come back to haunt me if I'm ever nominated for adminship. (and don't even think about it. Even without those 2 glitches I know I'm not ready :)

As far as spamfighting goes, I do that on new page patrol now. Even though I lean slightly to the inclusionist side, I think it's necessary to keep obvious bullshit off of WP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool stuff. It was just funny, that I saw your name, and flashed back to the days when I participated on NANAE , back when the (now late, not lamented_ company Sierra On-line was spamming, and I thought I had gotten it locked down, and got burned when they went back to spamming. Hopefully someday you'll be ready for the mop.. we need more people who can respond to insanity and craziness with humor ;) SirFozzie (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you have created a bit of a mess. I realize your intentions were good, but when you relist discussions, it is necessary to comment-out the transclusion in the original AfD log. Instead, you placed invisible text after the transclusion, and left it transcluded. This causes mathbot to still see it as open, and to list it on a few maintenance pages of AfD's that are overdue for closing. I'm cleaning it all up, and ask that you please do it the correct way in the future. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: This seems to be caused by a glitch in the Z-man AfD closing script, so please avoid using it until the matter is resolved. See Z-man's talk page for details. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no glitch. Mr.Z-man 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was all screwed up. I was on the wrong logpage. My apologies. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it so it redirected to Christian metal instead, as it professed to be christian death metal and not black metal. Zazaban (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Another valid target but note that "Unblack metal" is also a christian genre. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but it is christian black metal, which this is not. Zazaban (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made a mistake on an AFD closure that you had relisted, see here for the details. Sorry about that. Your comments are welcome. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on

WP:AN --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your Navy of Sudan RfD, and respectfully request that you withdraw your nomination. Each of the redirects you've nominated lead specifically to information concerning the country not having a navy (except for Sudan, for which

The Transhumanist    00:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on

WP:RFD --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Northern exposure rescue, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern exposure rescue. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

It's generally considered good form if you explain in your edit summary why you removed a speedy deletion tag. It's also considered civil if you notify the tagger as to why you felt the need to remove the tag. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained in my edit summary. I wanted another look and I would have restored the tag if I felt it was still an A7. Who tags the article is not important but making the right call is.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary was vague. If you had notified me, and explained why you felt my tag was incorrect, I might not have been so perturbed. Corvus cornix_talk 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the edit summary might look vague but I do that quite often. If' while doing new page patrol, I see an article that already has a speedy tag but I want to examine the article further, I,l temporarily remove the tag with the edit summary "reviewing, will retag if necessary". I do this so the article doesn't get deleted while I'm examining it. If I feel the tag was correct, I put it back. I have also replaced it with a more relevant tag. (ie DB-Attack instead of DB-Bio) I'm not trying to step on any toes or question anybody's judgement, I just want to make sure the right call is made. In the case of Northern exposure rescue I concluded that there was an assertion of notability but notability was questionable so I left the tag off and was in the process of posting to your talk page explaining this and recommending AFD while you were doing the AFD and posting on my talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been previously speedy deleted twice. 14 total Google hits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's only been speedy deleted once before. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Ritzman!

I have recently finished a round of upgrades to this article, which I believe you tagged for improvement. I would like to hear any thoughts/suggestions/critiques, etc of the work, given your request.

I am generally uncomfortable removing tags left by other editors, unless I am sure that it should be.

Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you put up my stub for speedy deletion, marked it as blatant advertising and apparently spam, too (at least, it's in the spam category now). I've read all the requirements and the notes on SD candidates, and I don't understand what I did. Keeper76 deleted my related Malwarebytes page after less than an hour on the SD list, too. I didn't even get a chance to talk about in on the talk page, it was just wiped. I know it's a stub, is that the problem? There are plenty of other less useful stubs. It's neither advertising nor spam, so why the designations? I thought these articles should at least have a placeholder, so I looked at Lavasoft and Ad-Aware and wrote a couple paragraphs. From one gnome to another, please explain me this.

Fredgoat (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes enthusiastic users write articles that look like something the marketing might have written. This was the case with this article and most likely with

neutral point of view if you're exited about something. When doing new page patrol I call em as I see em and at first glance, your article looked like spam. I've removed the speedy tag but your article still has notability issues. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll bang on it some more before I wander off, although I'm still not 100% clear from the notability page what notability actually means. I guess maybe I'll see if it's been in the news or something. Thanks! Fredgoat (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a hangon tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page.

I haven't created any pages today. What I have done is remove a few of your speedy tags from pages that were not IMHO speedy deletion candidates. One being this one which you had tagged as A2. A2 is only for pages not written in English. Removal of speedy tags by uninvolved editors is allowed for pages that are not speedy deletion candidates. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be having problem with TW. I apologise. This notice was put here in error.

Talk to Me

| 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to close AFDs. Just a couple of notes — the {{subst:at}} goes at the very top of the AFD (above even the section header), and along with your description of the closure ("keep", etc) you should insert your signature and the abbreviation (NAC) for "non-admin closure". I've fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Academy of Financial Management, but if you've closed any other AFDs lately you might take a moment to check that they've all been formatted properly.

If you anticipate helping out and closing more AFDs in the future, then I recommend

Actually, I've been using "that script" :) "That script", froze on the AFD you mentioned and I had to try to figure out what wasn't done and finish it by hand. I've also had to do the same thing when the script failed on some relists. "Ok, which log did it not edit". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You made this edit the the 23 September AFD log, and in doing so you removed 74 discussions from the log. I have reverted that edit; you may want to go back and figure out what you were trying to do and do it again. Since you left no edit summary, it's not at all clear what your intent was with that edit. Please a) leave edit summaries when changing AFD logs, and b) make sure that you don't nuke large portions of the logs when attempting to make relatively small changes (such as relisting a single discussion). Horologium (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to relist a nomination using Zman's AFD closing script. Not sure what went wrong. My earlier edit was to manually comment out another relist where the script froze. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your direction and agreement to my first wikipedia term

Thank you for the comment, that made me smile. Those no-consensus NAC were some kind of experiment, I was wondering if and how fast I would get yelled at for the wrong reason. Didn't take long. I started using and editing Wikipedia eons ago (though not a heavy weight editor), signed up two years and a half ago, and I'm a little concerned that adminship ("not a big deal" said Jimbo) seems to have evolved into some kind of elite status thing rather than the middle class of Wikipedia entrusted with the mop and bucket as it should be. Anyway, remember to be bold (but not reckless)! Equendil Talk 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo later revised this. "It's a bigger deal then it used to be" but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. IMHO part of the reason for this elevation is all the hoops you have to jump through to pass an

RFA. An editor who makes it through that gauntlet is tempted to think "I really must be hot shit". --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you closure of Victor Drazen was at least hasty. The discussion was on for less than five days and there was no proof of notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD is on

Universal time so I start looking at the "closable log" sometime after 8:00PM EDT (12:00AM GMT) If you look at the AFD, it shows my close on Oct 4th. Also, you were the only person making a delete argument. Everybody else was talking "keep" or "merge". Since merging is an editorial decision, that discussion can continue on the article's talk page. I don't think that keeping it open a few more hours or relisting would have changed the outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but just keep in mind that "The debate is not a vote" and the user that voted that the article is notable has been blocked several times. I think now the only way to fix the problem with notability is to convert to a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your non-admin closure has been undone as you have taken it to be a vote and have not read the substance of the user comments. In future please allow an administrator to close a deletion discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It just looked like a nonsense/test edit to me, so I tagged it. I don't mind being wrong. HalfShadow 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have probably followed up as you did...

Twinkle kinda malfunctioned when i was filling out the AFD...would you mind? Sam ^Blab 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What AFD are you referring to? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I woulld like to thankyou for your very fast assistance on the AfD talk page. I have left appropriate messages on Klipfontein's. Again, Thankyou--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ron. I saw from here that you relisted some AfDs. Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Training_and_development. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I really can't comment on this because I never saw the article nor participated in the original discussion but I generally don't relist debates with 3 comments, all delete. If that article was improved and/or sources added then somebody should have pointed that out in the original discussion. That might have bought a relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it would have made a difference in your closing decision but I just noticed this, a delete argument removed without comment. The editor who made it was eventually blocked for vandalism but this didn't look like vandalism. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it alone — it was only a

talk

) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your nice Huggling against all those evil vandals. Keep it up! :-) SoWhy 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Times of Pakistan" isn't a newspaper, it's a website. There's no indication that it's notable. And the user's other contributions clearly show that he's writing about himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I changed the tag to G3 and cited the hoax in the subject line.

PPS Oh, I am glad that I have the opportunity to chat with you. I've seen you online and I think you do a wonderful job. Keep up the fine work!

talk

) 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! I was always dreaming to be Wikipedia's cleaner. It's a toxic area and someone has to do the dirty work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ron. 'm totally disagree with a deletion of an Leo Luganskiy page. It's a hero from the one of most popular USA Tv commercial...Millions of people(including me) are watching this commercial and they're really curios about every detail in this spot, especially about this dancing guy. just type the Techno Twins commercial in the Google and you'll see how many things are there about it.It's already a 145.000 views on a you-tube and thousands of comments. And people are asking about the same thing OVER and OVER again. So, i think that u should rethink your decision.

thank you.

If you feel that this article shouldn't be deleted then you need to add the string {{hangon}} to the top of the page and then post your reason to the article's talk page. This will let the reviewing admin know your objections. The reason that I tagged it for speedy deletion is that you did not say why he's important of significant. The band he plays for doesn't even have a name yet according to the article. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that "myspace" bands and musicians aren't notable and there was no mention of the commercial you speak of in the article. The relevant guideline for the inclusion of singers bands etc. is

here. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody closed the AfD right after you relisted it. It's a bit odd. I don't have an interest this article, this is just a "heads up" message. VG ☎ 17:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a comment for that but it would have created a mess if it were deleted.

A9 despite a clear consensus to keep. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Brian Sherwin AfD, no problem with closure, but there are some technical matters with tidying up afterwards.[19][20] Ty 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I use a

script to close AFDs and it's suppose to do all the "tidying up". Occasionally it leaves a thing or two undone. Thanks --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Naughty script! I can understand the multi-AfD, but it didn't take the notice off the article page. A bug? Nothing like a manual check to make sure... Ty 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is 'not' noteworthy. This person is putting an ad up disguised as an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The

have the closure reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"IoS" is short for "Importance or Significance" which according to WP:SPEEDY is a lower standard then "notability" and I do agree with you that it should be a "credible" assertion. However, while reviewing the article in question, I felt there was a weak assertion of "Significance" and it was "credible" but yes, the article was a mess. If I can get an admin to email me the article, I'll quote the phrase which IMHO established "IoS". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I see it's moot anyway: the article was already deleted two months ago after an AfD, and given the basis for that consensus, I'm going to file the applicable CSD nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that it had been AFDd and deleted but if it had I would have replaced the A7 with a G4.

BTW you may be interested in

WT:CSD It deals with the difference between "Importance or Significance" and "notability". In it I explain why I use the phrase "assert IoS" instead of "assert notability" --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 15:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You denied the CSD a9 on Cruise Control (song), stating that the artist has an article. But he doesn't. The writers have articles, but the singer is Jamahl Seden, who doesn't have an article. So my understanding is that this does qualify as speedy A9. Thanks, Raven1977 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I've been seeing a lot of goober tagging in

AFD

.

I'm not trying to step on any toes. I just think it's necessary to make sure that the right call is made. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't consider any toes stepped on. :-) You're probably right about the fact that at least when the writers are notable the song might be notable. So I'll go ahead and take it to AfD. Thanks for explaining your decision further though, it's appreciated. Raven1977 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see we disagreed about what to do with

Im still not sure so I'll defer to your judgment and put it back. Let an admin decide. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gone. JPG-GR (Talk | contribs) deleted ""the new seminary"" (G11: Blatant advertising) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the issue was decided by someone else then. :) Cheers!

Just wondering why you closed this as redirect when there appears to be no concensus? PC78 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was really a "keep" as nobody but the nominator was arguing for deletion. I closed as "redirect" because IMHO the arguments for that were a little stronger but as I said in my closing statement, I have no problem with someone reinstating the full article. In other words, it was a "keep" combined with an editorial decision to redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has reverted to a full article but by doing so reinstated the AFD notice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion was divided on whether or not to "keep" or "redirect", which would make the outcome a "no concensus" with default to keep, though I appreciate that you felt there was a stronger argument to redirect. Personally I would have left it for an admin to close, as the outcome was far from clear cut. PC78 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You just touched on a bigger issue. There's currently a disagreement on just what AFD's mandate is. On one side, (the one I fall on) AFD is for deciding on whether or not an admin should push a "delete" button. In this view, !votes/closes to "merge" or "redirect" are all variants of "keep" because the article's history is retained. On the other side, there are those for which the question is "should wikipedia have an independent article on the subject". In that view, "merge" and "redirect" are "pseudo delete" outcomes.

The

fish in the face) only comes into play if there are a significant number of editors saying Delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that all seems like splitting hairs to me. As for the article, I'd have been tempted to relist it since her notability largely rests on whether or not she wins the show tonight. I see someone has redirected again, but I'll be surprised if that doesn't change at least once more today. PC78 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, she won the show so this is all moot :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Harry Mason's article is still around yet he only appeared in one game. That's kind of biased too.

Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.54.27 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't call it quick. The discussion was open for 5 days with everyone but you saying "redirect". Also, it wasn't removed. The article's text and history are still there. If the article is fixed to address the problems that led to its nomination, it can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have removed my speedy deletion tag on the above article. Please help me understand why it is valid to retain this article when the subject is comprehensively covered by Uerdingen railbus. It is just a stub containing infomation duplicated elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD

.

In the case of the article in question, if you feel it duplicates the information in another article, then just redirect it to that article. A redirect doesn't require that the article be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, script or cache. Thanks for fixing. Not sure why it didn't show on my end. Thanks! StarM 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. :) How do I make my script checking for edit conflicts? — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr Zman has to do that, it's on the wishlist. This has also led to several "double closes". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I closed this as "keep" since it's been open for 8 days with some strong "keep" arguments from experienced AFDers and nobody saying "delete". Thought I'd let you know because you usually don't nominate articles for deletion unless you're certain they don't meet our inclusion guidelines. If you think it should have run a few more days then I'll revert the close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't dispute that closure.

talk

) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Before I AfD this article and possibly embarrass myself, I was only able to find a single reference for less than a round of professional fighting. None of the other fighting time or history discussed was accounted for in Google. Were you able to find more than that? ttonyb1 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. However, in order to escape A7, the article does not have to have sources. All it has to do is give a reasonable indication that the subject may be notable. (the actual wording is "importance or significance") In my judgement, Brian Morrell did give such an indication by saying is a Former Professional Fighter...one of Michigan's Top Amateur Fighters in the mid 80s so therefore the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. AFD is the proper venue for discussing the deletion of that article and that's why I recommended it in my edit summary.

I don't like people using Wikipedia for self promotion but CSD criteria are very narrow for a reason. I removed several other tags from articles yesterday for the same reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the logic. Thanks for helping me out with this. Enjoy... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Morrell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Morrell. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)