Jump to content

User talk:Ron Ritzman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brendon111 (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 15 May 2012 (→Your decision to keep the An Nisa, 34). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Accidental revert?

Sure about this? I have re-reverted you. ;) Nageh (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big honking nuclear "OH SHIT!!. I was checking my watchlist with Opera Mini and for some reason clicks started activating the wrong links. Example, I would click Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tholden28/Canadian federal election, 2015 and User:Drmies would load. One of those misclicks must have been a rollback. They really need to remove rollback from watchlists. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:) Nageh (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Ballyhoo afd close...

Hope you don't mind a question... regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballyhoo (lighting cue)... the article had, if I remember correctly, two references, to offline books on theatrical lighting (or something like that). WP:V doesn't mean that the sources have to be easily accessible, only that they exist. I'm assuming that you didn't personally check these two books to make sure that they didn't contain information on the subject, so how do you draw the conclusion that the article fails verification? I have always assumed a lot of good faith when dealing with offline sources. Nothing that User: Whpq said in the deletion discussion leads me to believe that he read the sources either—I read his responses to say that the sources available to him don't have any information, not that he examined the cited sources himself.

I've got no dog at all in this fight—I'd never seen the article before I reviewed it at AfD... I'm just trying to reconcile how I think Wikipedia policies should be applied vs. your application (and presumed community consensus, assuming that your decision reflects consensus). Thanks! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that the term exists but the article's claim about its origin is what is unverifiable. Without that then it's a dictionary definition and that's all it can ever be, If someone with access to the 2 "sources" can provide inline citations for those claims (page/chapter), then maybe we can reconsider. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Wikipedia entry on Ali PayaAlipayaa (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ron Ritzman

On 22 March 2012 you announced that you had decided to delete the entry which had been created in my name in Wikipedia. The link to the page in which you stated your decision is as follows: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Paya Below please find my reasons in objection to your decision:

I am Associate Professor of Philosophy at National research Institute for Science Policy in Iran and also Visiting Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Politics and International ReAlipayaa (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)lAlipayaa (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)ations, University of Westminster in the UK. Contrary to what is suggested in the comments in the above link, the posts of Visiting Professor and Senior Research Fellow are academically very prestigious. Only those academics who are well qualified in their fields are invited as Visiting Professor and Senior Fellows.[reply]

In my capacity of a Professor I have published many scholarly books and papers in both English and Persian in academic journals, held many senior departmental positions, taught numerous postgraduate and undergraduate courses, and supervised many Master dissertations and PhD theses both in Iran and in the UK.

In my capacity of a public intellectual I have also published many books and articles which deal with issues related to the debates in the public sphere.

If you like I can send you a full version of my CV which runs into 20 pages.

In view of the above I would appreciate it if you could undelete the last version of the article which bore my name in Wikipedia. I have reproduced a version of this last update entry for your convenience. If you have any query concerning my academic background and records please do not hesitate to get in touch via the following e.mail address: a.paya@westminster.ac.uk

My answer to your first query still stands. All biographies of living persons are required to have sources and the article on you had none except a page at the University of Westminster which required a login and password to view. Therefore, I will not restore this version of the article but any logged in editor is free to write a new article on you. However, per our guidelines on autobiographies and conflict of interest, that editor should be somebody other then you or anybody associated with you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ron Ritzman

Thank you for your reply. My profile at the University of Westminster is available without the need for a user name and password. Here is the link: www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/directory/paya,-ali Alternatively, you can do a simple Google search for my name 'Ali Paya' and then click on the following link: University of Westminster - About us - Professor Ali Paya By the way a Google search will also provide many samples of my scholarly papers published in academic journal and also information on my books published by well-known Iranian and international publishers. The above, I guess, should suffice for the demand for 'sources' on autobiographical articles.

Regards,

Ali Paya Alipayaa (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neopolitan Business Park

Can you send me a copy of the Revision History of the Neopolitan Business Park? I need that to add a section to the CAT:BJAODN Clarence froggy (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Jenkins (Footballer)

Just a heads up, when closed this afd, all you deleted was a redirect. The actual article was moved to Rory Jenkins (footballer) after the afd started. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never Give In (Black Veil Brides EP)

Hello. Really I don't know how use the English Wikipedia (I am from the Spanish Wikipedia, but now i'm blocked). I think I proposed the page for something called... PROD? yeah, think that is. Can you see it and say to me if I made good? Thank you!... And sorry for my poor English, you know, my native language is Spanish. Renegade Mons†er 22:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba at a Cross Roads (2nd nomination)

File:Cuba at a Cross Roads Cover.jpg is to go too. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulkifli Abdhir

Hi. I've opined to the above deletion discussion, and like to point out - there are now four keeps with no outstanding delete votes. Although numbers do not count, I think consensus has been established. Thanks, Till I Go Home (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "numbers" do count somewhat but if that was all it was, I would have punched it "keep". I still might have if it were an article about a Pokemon or a video game weapon but we need to be a little more careful with BLPs. I just didn't feel comfortable closing it with only 1 "real" keep argument. At this point it probably will be kept but let's keep it open for another few days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for International Organization for a Participatory Society

Hi Ron,

The article was up for deletion and you relisted it. Secondfletcher thinks it should stay. I do too now. After more than a week no opposing views have been articulated. How long do the tags need to stay?--JohKar (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Frame

I was the only one to comment at the AFD two mionths ago, and you then moved it per my reccommendation to the incubator. The nominator's concern toward it being "apparently in post-production" is addressed by sources showing it as set to finally screen in 6 days.[1] As concerns toward WP:NFF are addressed, I have assessed it as ready enough to be returned to mainspace for further expansion and sourcing by the community, but feel I should not be the one to actually move it back. Might you consider making the move? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEMIV

Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits

  • Redirects without discussion
  • Actions against consensus of discussion
  • Subversion of AfD process
  • Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process
EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.

Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters#K

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242
Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241
Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace

Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek
Anarchangel (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove tricking?

Why did you remove the Tricking section of wikipedia?

Freerun and parkour are totally different things, and we're sick as practitioners of getting confused with them, then shit like this happens. Dude you dont know our sport, and you prolly dont know what parkour is either. Parkour is getting from point A to B in the most efficient way possible, freerunning is getting from point A to B in the flashiest way possible (precision jumps and elements of tricking). Tricking is a sport done on flat ground ALWAYS where you link together moves in order to accomplish high end combos. Its not based on jumping on buildings. If you gotta compare it to anything, gymnastics and bboying is closer. Also tricking evolved from Martial Arts and it first appeared in martial arts Naska circles. You must kick in Tricking. it's what sets it apart from anything else. The kicks!!!

GAAAHHH HOW COULD YOU DO THIS! REVERT THE ARTICLE AT ONCE YOU FIEND! Our sport needs more decent exposure and that article did a decent job on it.

Tricking deletion

Dude, why on earth did you delete tricking?

I understand the entry in it's original form likely still needed a lot of work but "Tricking" is it's own entity. It's an internationally recognised and practiced discipline that has a huge body of practitioners from all over the world. It grew out of sport karate open forms and has expanded into it's own discipline often being defined as "an aesthetic blend of flips, twists, and kicks" (trickstutorials.com, 2010). To give you some background, the term used to describe the discipline is simply "Tricking" sometimes also called "Martial Arts Tricking", due to the simplicity of it's name, i.e. "tricking" you can be forgiven for assuming it's just word used to describe aspects various activities, but I assure you it's a very real discipline in it's own right. Practitioners of the discipline are called "Trickers" or "Tricksters" and attended "Gatherings" all over the world. To help support my argument for undeletion (sic) the following web resources should help highlight it's significance: www.trickstutorials.com www.tricksession.com/forum/index.php www.club540.com www.trickingtube.com www.justtheskills.com www.aeriformmat.com www.dogentricks.com www.nztricker.com www.theunito.com www.trikkaus.com www.trickingaustralia.com.au www.tricksociety.com If you want more I can start with the thousands of gathering pages, youtube channels and facebook groups also. Also, just look at the 540 kick page on wikipedia, it's the cornerstone 'trick' of tricking, all of the variations belong to tricking and trickers. How can there be pages about actual tricks within tricking, but no page for the discipline itself?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link that says "afd" above you will see that there was a discussion about the fate of this article and almost every editor who participated in it said "delete". The AFD could not have been closed any other way and if it weren't be it would have been another admin. However, I can view deleted articles and some sourcing was added to the article between the time it was nominated for deletion and the time it was deleted. Therefore, you might have a case for deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the discussion that lead to the deletion, it appears nobody really knew what they were talking about, did minimal research, and the entry ended up getting deleted out of ignorance (to be honest). Are you seriously going to force this through the 'deletion review' process? Can't you just undo your mistake? Edit: I just re-read the discussion, it happened over a one week period, that's a shockingly short turn around for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Articles in Wikipedia must have verifiability; the AfD was closed because no evidence of notability was ever provided that could be verified, other than to self-referencing "tricking" websites. Where is the coverage in the press? In books or magazines? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's an article from cbs news http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57413781-10391705/tricking-adds-a-new-level-of-difficulty-to-any-sport/ 

here's another news article http://fairfield-advance.whereilive.com.au/news/story/ninjas-are-bringing-it-on-for-youth-festival/

Team Unito (a team of trickers) featured on Finland's Got Talent and ended up getting 2nd in the grand final http://www.nelonen.fi/ohjelmat/talent-suomi/etusivu/video/talent-suomi-semifinaali-1-unito-trikkasi-finaaliin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricking

bring it back YO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.119.96 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the tricking thing.

Man you can do whatever you want its your site. We just thought you guys actually wanted to spread information to the people. Dont really care. Have fun with life... But sooner or later you'll have to put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.165.28 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricking

Please undelete tricking.

I'm a tricker and tricker does exist and is a thing unrelated to skateboarding and other acrobatic sports.

Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.120.99 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about erasing Puertorrican architech Ricardo Alvarez- Diaz

Good evening Mr. Ritzman.

I do hope that when you read my lines you are doing great. First i will like to apologize due to my lack of knowledge both in the English language and in the internet field so excuse any weird questions or bad spelling. My brother is Architech Ricardo Alvarez-Diaz, very well known, respected and praise in his field, not only in Puerto Rico but in thee States as well as in the Caribbean an Latin America. Some of his work have even been selected as actual case study for the Clinton Foundation among many accolades.

I wonder why did you erase him? Can you help me understand or guide me so he can be re established? I know we can supply you with information than you request for validation

Www.adgpr.com

Kind regards,

--Elena Alvarez-Diaz-- (05/03/12)


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.225.192 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link that says "afd" above you will see that there was a discussion about whether or not this article should be deleted and the result was unanimous. If it weren't be it would have been some other admin. I'm sure your brother is a great man but it was felt that there wasn't much that set him apart from other architects yet. He may indeed be well respected and known across the Caribbean and Latin America but are there any sources for any of this? Have any journalists written articles about him? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Grupo Capoeira Batuque

Dear Ron Ritzman,

I am very new to Wiki entries, editing and so on. My very first entry was an assignment (still is actually), which turns out right now it was unsuccessful. I still have chances to make it successful (hoping for that), and that's why I am here: to ask for help.

I've researched before submitting "[Capoeira Batuque]" article, and I do understand there was no other reference in spite of people from the group. Although, I quite didn't get it how different would it be from this article [Capoeira Brasil]

I'd much appreciate your time in helping me to understand Wiki processes a bit better. Many thanks in advance!

--Cinlms (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about whether or not you understand or don't understand our processes. The discussion on the fate of this article ran for 7 days and it was felt that there wasn't anything that set this school apart from other Capoeira schools aside from an unsourced claim that it's the oldest in Southern California. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood...I appreciate your prompt reply. Still, how different regarding resources and references it would be from the article [Capoeira Brasil]? How could this not be seen more commercial than not allowing other groups on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for your time in replying it.

--Cinlms (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of John A. Patti Wikipedia page

Ron,

I am responding to the deletion of John A. Patti's page. I understand that users felt the subject was not notable enough. What are some steps I can take following a deletion due to lack of notability? I believe, given further sourcing, that Mr. Patti can meet this criteria. Thank you. --craigsko Craigsko (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the discussion it seems that right now there's nothing you can do. He appears to be an ordinary lawyer doing his job. If there is more news coverage about him in the future, this may change. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of article S.K. Mohanty

I would like to know the procedure for undeletion of the article "S.K. Mohanty". Would you please guide me with your valuable suggestions. --Nprantik (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the AFD in question didn't have much participation and notibility was borderline, it was felt that the article was too promotional. At this point I think it would be best if someone with absolutely no connection to the subject write a new article from a neutral point of view. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of the Neopolitan Business Park

I am attempting to restore the page Neopolitan Business Park before I took a long Wikibreak. The reasons for deletion is Notability, but the fact that the business park have rel-estate and advertisments in the net proves it notable. Verifiability now is no longer a problem as I found new references and external links that I believe are unbiased. Kj plma (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the consensus was clear but if you have sources that show notability then you are welcome to present them to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Deletion?

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bethel as a delete and was curious about your reasoning behind it. Why was it "going to be a no consensus close" and then ended up being a "delete" ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "delete without prejudice" which means it won't be subject to CSD G4 if recreated. I just don't feel comfortable with leaving unsourced biographies of living persons in article space. If this was a "keep" close I would have moved it to the incubator until sourced. Like I said at the AFD, if you wish to source this article then I will be happy to move it to your userspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time extension

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor deliberately confusing his responses at AfD and see whether you agree about giving that AFD discussion a bit more time. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, by the time I was able to check that out, both the ANI and AFD discussions had been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Lamar Deletion

Curious why you deleted this article? Seems like some of the folks on wikipedia would just like to undo some of the work that others do, why did you delete this? THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbscottw (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click where is says "afd" above you can see why. It was a deletion discussion about the fate of the article that you were informed about and were welcome to participate in. I hope for Sierra's safe return but it was felt by those who participated in the discussion that the case doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article at this time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We As Human Undeletion

"I would like to open an undeletion discussion about an article I created about the band We As Human. File:We As Human.jpeg I can prove that they meet the WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG & WP:BAND criteria. They are a very notable rock band signed to a MAJOR music label (Atlantic Records) and have been on national television for years, i.e., xbox commercials, music channels, television interviews on frequent rotation, etc. They recently finished the winterjam Tour that afterwards took the #1 position (in the world) on the tour charts - which meet the WP:GOODCHARTS criteria - for the first quarter! http://instagr.am/p/JQWDcpCnmU/

I'm not sure why this article was actually deleted. The researched cited in the deletion discussion was unfounded at best, and I feel this band is more than worthy of an article. They are currently in the studio with world renowned -multi grammy award winning producer Howard Benson, and they are about to release a full length record on Atlantic records and have done MAJOR touring for 4+ years now. Please undelete this article as it meets all of the aforementioned Wikipedia acceptance criteria. Thank You, --Jamnashville (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I closed the AFD, I did so as a neutral admin and only carried out the consensus. However, in response to your post here I did some googling and I can't find any significant press coverage for this band. I did find this and this but these are only trivial mentions. WP:BAND requires multiple news articles either about the band or with at least several paragraphs about the band. I'm sorry but if I were to have !voted in this AFD instead of closing it I would have !voted "delete". However, if your own research came up with sources that I or those who participated in the AFD discussion have missed then you are welcome to have the AFD decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to keep the An Nisa, 34

Visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/An-Nisa,_34#An-Nisa.2C_34

AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount.
..Many AfDs in the past have had a final outcome that contradicts the numbers, and many will in the future. It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa) if that single argument is really good and the remainder are just votes.

— WP:SUPPORT

I tried to refute most opposing votes with references to various Wikipedia policies. I even explained that why the verse-article ought to be deleted. Yet you decide to just close the discussion with a heading “[t]he result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator.” So what? If I'm only one who presents arguments for my view, is that a wrong thing? I humbly suggest you reconsider your decision one more time and please go through the points I raised again. Please do it. You might see what the problem is.
Please ponder upon the fact that the subject of controversy is “Islamic approval of domestic violence.” And not anything else. But that subject already has a page. That's the reason why An-Nisa, 34 is a coatrack article. An article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. If anything suits the description of a coatrack article it's this verse-article. I explained every point that could have been raised on that AfD page.

Further information: WP:FRINGE and WP:COAT

 Brendon ishere 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but no admin could have closed this discussion any other way. (though I suppose that an admin's discretion "no consensus" was possible but that would be a stretch) If I had deleted this article it would get overturned at DRV. As for my closing rationale, please do not take it personally, I use that phrase on most of my closes where there is a unanimous decision to keep an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry but no admin could have closed this discussion any other way." - I respect your view, although I doubt that it's true.
"please do not take it personally" - of course not, I never took it personally. That's not my point. If you read my points carefully (which I'm sure you do) you'll find that it's nothing more than a coatrack article. A verse from qur'an, by itself, doesn't merit an Individual page.
Wikipedia is not dedicated to doing the job of a lexicon or a tafsir.

Just tell me this much, do you see my point or not? See, I need your help (please don't mistake it for connivance or sufferance) in this.
The thing is, I would like to appeal again for deletion of that coatrack article, so could you tell me where to go from here? Or, could we just do something to draw more administrative attention to it? I don't think the right amount of people were notified. That short referendum doesn't reflect the true consensus, IMO.

Help me improve Wikipedia, please.

New Addition: The primary rationale behind the votes for keep, was that “this verse seems to be the subject of much commentary and debate” and thus worthy of an individual page.

But this bears little relation to reality.

You need to understand what Islam is, to preclude the unjustifiable belief that the verse itself is the subject of controversy and deserves a page. There is no controversy regarding the verse, there can't be. Within Islam it is believed that Qur'an is the "clear truth and the best explanation" [Quran 25:33].
Then, what is this article discussing about? Mere interpretations (based on conflicted interest). That is also unneeded because the verse is pretty express about its approval of wife-beating (Sura 38:44 even describes the procedure to beat one's wife).  Brendon ishere 14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've got quite a few articles about individual notable verses of the New Testament (Category:Gospel_of_John_verses, Category:Gospel of Matthew verses...); this seems to be an individually notable verse of the Quran. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false argument (probably a non-sequitur logical fallacy). The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from just creating an article. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that probably should not exist (that's one reason why WP:AfD is still in business). So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist.
Would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? It may not. So, it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too".  Brendon ishere 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brendon, enough already. You came here and asked the reviewing admin a question; it's been answered. You cannot rehash the deletion discussion again. If you're not satsified with the response, and STILL think the article requires a policy-based deletion, then go to deletion review and bring it to the community to review. Stop badgering (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add, I found your attempts to counter all the arguments in the original AFD to be counter-productive, and bordering on bullying - you made your passionate deletion discussion. The !votes are theirs - leave them be. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Brendon, enough already." - Hey, you better mind your tone, Bwilkins.

"it's been answered" - you don't have to sit in judgement of that. It's between Ron and myself. If he minds my presence he could always say so himself. I am not here to fight a war of acrimony. I was in the middle of a discussion. This is Ron's user-page. What's your problem if I want to discuss things with Ron? I will do what I feel like doing, you don't tell me what to do.

I don't need your assistance now, otherwise I would have visited your talk page, not Ron's. BWilkins, I would advice you to not poke your nose in where you're unneeded.
Ron is a capable administrator, and presumably he can handle himself.

"I found your attempts.." - I really don't give a rat's behind about what you found. You leave me alone. I don't care if your views are correct or not. I don't care. I am willing to talk to Ron and anybody else but you.  Brendon ishere 11:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides,

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors sometimes use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion.

— WP:DEMOCRACY

— Brendon ishere 11:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ron_Ritzman&oldid=492679672"