Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

13 August 2006

List of EPs

The list was deleted after a few reactions. The list cost quite some time to make. As is said by the last user the list of albums exists. The category Category:EPs could be expanded to make sure the EPs can also be searched by the name of the EP: the list of EPs I think should remain there to list the EPs by band/artist name in alphabetical order (cf. the category Category:Double albums and List of double albums). Brz7 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My reading is that the result was categorize and delete. Not sure if that has happened because the Cat looks pretty empty. I suggest you request userfication (3rd time I'm using this) if you want to categorize it. On not keeping the list, I think the consensus was very clear. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely a "categorise and delete" outcome. I support userfication for the purposes of categorisation to whoever wants to do that. Endorse categorisation - the argument that list of albums exists was presented only half a day before close with no counter-argument presented, but I don't think it merits a relist, being essentially WP:POKEMON and not persuasive enough to affect the outcome even with another 5 days. List of albums itself is a list of lists anyway, whereas this list is a list of actual articles, so that isn't much of a comparison. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lloyd (Australian actor)

This article was nominated for deletion on the 4th of August and closed five days later, by Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as a delete. Blnguyen appears to have based his close on his view that the proportion of delete votes in the tally falls into the fabled Administrator Discretion Zone; he then proceeds to explain his personal views on the article without reference to the discussion below. I would personally (there's that word again!) have closed this as a no consensus, but that's just my view. The real problem is that this is a close that ranks as "totally piss-poor" because: a) he (foolishly) mentions the tally as if it has any relevance whatsoever, and b) he totally ignores the discussion below. We expect better from the admins who close AfD discussions. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Restore Article. Far exceeds the bar for notability. Gets thousands of Google hits, IMDb weakness is not a criteria for deletion. This person has been involved in several variant newsworthy things, not only a movie. Wjhonson 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite overturn. I meant to bring this one here myself, actually, I don't understand this close at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; horrible reasoning for deletion. Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The closest thing would be "no consensus," as there were few votes. The voters were generally established people, and they split on it. My problem is that those who voted to keep were voting on the article as it could be. I think, indeed, the article could be worth keeping, if entirely rewritten. As of its deletion, it was ungrammatical, concerned simply with a single year of a single show, and concerned mainly with "the media" telling a soap opera that this guy was too old. That's no kind of biography of a major actor. What I would love to endorse is a new article, as I can see nothing in this version worth preserving, including date of birth. Geogre 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per The Fabled Administrator Discretion Zone (i.e. between cloture and supermajority). Also it's perfectly fine for an admin to examine the quality of the sources, especially if editors vote based on inaccurate information. I also find the nomination borderline uncivil (not to mention factually wrong). ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no such thing as the Administrator Discretion Zone, because AfD is not a vote. If you aren't aware of that simple fact, then please don't make statements along the lines of what admins can and can't do, and what is and is not factually correct about the nomination. The ADZ assumes that, when the delete vote proportion of the tally lies within a certain area, it's acceptable for the closer to just do what he likes — but there is no vote tally, no ADZ, and no support for the idea that the closer gets to make his own decision without reference to the discussion. As for incivility, well, don't move to Australia, that's all I can suggest — you'll spend most of your time here blushing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact it isn't, it's a consensus finding process with the goal to establish rough consensus, defined as the "dominant view" of a group as determined by its chairperson. The chairperson in this case was User:Blnguyen who determined 1. this was leaning consensus but not a blatantly obvious consensus; 2. hence it was necessary to look at the strength of arguments; 3. the IMDB link you proffered didn't cut it, and others, like the one you referenced had already been refuted and retracted during the AfD, so 4. the arguments in favor of keep were weak enough to tip the scale in favor of delete. Perfectly within admin's discretion. And last time I checked we're meeting at WP not OZ, so Australian civility rules don't apply. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Err, no. The vote tally is utterly irrelevant, and the closing admin doesn't act as chairman counting votes to determine anything. 1) Going from his statement when closing, Blnguyen decided nothing of the sort. 2) It's always necessay to look to the strength of arguments. 3) I disagree as to the importance of the IMDb link I noted (which, if nothing else, points out that he's had reasonable stints on three very popular Australian soaps). 4) If he had pointed that out, well, we'd still be here, but we'd be here on "I disagree with that characterisation", rather than "He obviously didn't notice the discussion". Re civility, Blnguyen is Australian, too. If he feels my use of "piss-poor" rather than more civil, international words like "terrible" or "woeful", I'm sure he'll be along presently to give me a right deserved ding about the ear. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is of course complete bull per rough consensus:Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached. Whatever you think "AfD is not a vote" says, it's definitely not that that closing admin cannot count votes. Even WP:DGFA#Rough consensus doesn't say anything about "strength of argument" beyond exceptional cases. We've been pushing for more elaborate closing statements in borderline cases here for a while, and THANK YOU to Blnguyen for putting in the extra effort. The closing was perfectly within procedure, your claim that he ignored the discussion has just been debunked by your own admission that he checked into your IMDB link, and on judgement calls between closing admin and opinionated editor on qulaity of arguments I will almost always side with the closing admin. End of discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore: classic case of "I haven't heard of it so it can't be notable", which in an admin is unacceptable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse the closure itself. The rationale means fuck-all in the whole scope of things. The article unambiguously sucked. The AFD was closed the right way, arguably for the wrong reasons. If we can find a source of verifiable info about this fellow (IMDB has nothing more than a brief filmography), feel free to create a new article in its place. Until then, keep deleted. —freak(talk) 09:01, Aug. 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I agree that the article itself was not much chop; however, a common occurrence when one re-creates an article deleted by AfD because "it's not notable!" is for a bunch of very serious, if none too experienced, editors having a bit of a whinge because AfD has determined we can never have an article on that subject. Since I feel this fellow is notable, and would rather like to re-create a stub for him, I don't want a bunch of people who think they're process wonks (but don't know the process well enough to claim that august title) arguing that I'm not allowed. In such a case, a good close result accompanied woeful (there, that's much more civil, eh?) reasoning is a Bad Thing. Sure, delete crap. But don't make an invalid close, when its only result will be to salt the earth behind you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per freakofnature. --Interiot 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two user templates

Template:User DAoC

Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows (textonly)

These user templates were deleted without the TfD process with the sole reason given as WP:GUS. The German userbox solution is not policy so should not be used to delete any user template without first going through the TfD process. The first template was created to merge three like templates, which the author of those templates approved, and the three were deleted via the TfD process. The second was created as a companion template to the Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows user template to give users a choice between having images or not. The out of process deletion of these two templates is wrong and should be reversed quickly. I am against the German userbox solution and am attempting to make unified templates instead to reduce the number of user templates and keep them in their proper place, Template space. - LA @ 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The second was not created by me, and I found it on accident. - LA @ 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, relist optional. Appear to be out-of-process/out-of-policy speedies. GUS is not a recognized CSD; I can't see the deleted content, but there's no mention of the sorts of things that would qualify this for CSD T1. If nothing else, people should be given a chance to userfy this content before it's deleted. Luna Santin 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, relist optional as above. Even if GUS was policy, I doubt that it would allow the out-of-process removal of userboxes. The windows (text only) userbox may have call to be deleted, as no users use it, but only catagories appear to currently have a CSD reasoning allowing for no use removals. LinaMishima 10:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; while the German Userbox Solution is not policy, there's still no need for this to be in template space. They can be created wherever in user space; that's fine with me. Ral315 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are templates, and templates belong in template space. - LA @ 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userspace transclusions function as templates. Template space is for encyclopedic stuff and userspace is for userboxes. --Cyde Weys 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, undeleting would serve no useful purpose, this is not useful content. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore This should have gone through TFD, GUS is not a policy. Hbdragon88 07:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per WP:GUS, these don't need to be templates. --Cyde Weys 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. --Interiot 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am against the German userbox solution as it equtes to putting these flowers in the attic and under the stairs. Leave them in the Template space where they belong. They should be treated with the respect they deserve, not as if they were contraband that has to be found in some dark alley. There is another way I think about it, but I won't type it as it would go too far, and might inflame a lot of people, though I am already seeing red. - LA @ 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Heller

I believe there was no consensus, rough or otherwise, to delete this page. Therefore, it should be undeleted. Stheller 03:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Heller. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified the closing admin of this discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It's more probable that I made a mistake than was genuinely defiant of the opinions expressed. I am only human and I have no axe to grind with any party around here! My thoughts on this article were that the author is clearly knowledgable about a particular field but that they haven't stated what their notable achievements in that field are. This being the case, AfD gives interested parties five days to update an article to the point of notability or beyond. As this hadn't happened according to the edit history I thought that, rather than losing the material altogether with a simple delete, it would be better off on the authors' user page, where it would give other editors an insight in to their contributions (C++ & Javascript). The article doesn't say anything about the books being notable achievements - my libraries have several dozen books on each subject. Are they standard works on the subject. Technical translation is an expensive business - does this push the author in to notable status? I thought not, so I went with the userfy advice. This was my reasoning but I am open to seeing it reversed! Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I would have liked to see an explanatory note with this non-standard close, and asked the closing admin for same, but now that we have explanation, I am certain this is a valid close within the bounds of administrative discretion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There is a slight majority for deletion, and so deletion would require some compelling reasons to discount all or part of it, and Aero seems to be admitting that he doesn't really have one ("It's more probable that I made a mistake than was genuinely defiant"). The only writing in the article at time of deletion was "Steve Heller is the author of a number of books on programming, some of which have been translated into other languages", followed by a list of works. I agree that doesn't exactly scream "notable", but nevertheless enough editors at AfD thought that was sufficient notability, and nobody built a good case against them. What Aero says above about technical books being common may be true, but it should have been said during the discussion, not at the end. I also object to the userfication of this article, even if I had supported its deletion - userfication should only be done on the request of the user, as Wikipedia is not a free web host and Miscellany for deletion gets too many userpages that don't serve any purpose but to advertise as it is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think Jahiegel (talk · contribs) is pretty persuasive in the discussion. I can see how one might argue that someone who has written a lot of textbooks might not be considered notable, but I don't think the AfD discussion itself justifies closing on that view. The closing admin also failed to provide any reasoning for his close (though I appreciate his points here on DRV). Finally, if I could stray off-topic for a moment (Alex is going to kill me), the AfD nomination itself wasn't much chop, either: "it's vanity", he says through pursed lips whilst radiating the impression that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. Well? Vanity, eh? I can see why we'd want to punish that ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mark. Note that I did not recommend deletion. I believe it's good form to air obvious WP:AUTO violations on AfD if they assert something, on all the grounds that WP:AUTO affords. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore, and flag for cleanup and POV if needed. No need to delete. Wjhonson 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. This one seems rather clear, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Another "Bob wrote books" article. There is no biography present, no discussion whatever of the figure. What kind of programming (don't refer me to a list)? How highly praised? How many sold? What companies? Is he under contract or freelance? Does he do journalism? When was he born? Where was he educated? What are his other employments or credentials? Give the reader something besides a stupid list of books. This is a substub sitting proudly atop an ad. I don't mean to argue the AfD, but it is proper to close this with a deletion as the article is a very clear violation of "not advertising." Geogre 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with a stub? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing. I will freely admit that I'm hard line compared to others, but I insist that there be enough information that you feel that you know the basics and desire more for it to be a "stub." For me, a simple statement of fact, a Jeopardy! answer, is not an article at all. I'm not trying to be insulting with the analogy, but I think "The Brothers Karamazhov is a book written by Tolstoy" isn't a stub. What bothered me here is that we had "X wrote books" and then a list. There isn't enough to contextualize it, so it is, instead, a single piece of information (a fact), and single facts are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I know that I'm much more severe than others when it comes to substubs, but I'm consistently so. Geogre 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse userfication (If that's a word). Whatever the voting editors believed the true notability of the subject is, it was clearly not established in the CV excerpt that masks as an article (Hello reliable sources!?). Also, for vanity articles of borderline notable subjects the twenty dollar bill rule applies: If it's not fake, someone else will pick it up. In the same vein, if the subject is truly notable someone else will recreate the article, and hopefully one that follows policy. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page there now is a completely different Steve Heller, that I've just pasted up. I guess we need disamb now... Wjhonson 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ricci

Hi, I'm the one who recently edited Bob Ricci's music page, and I used the information from his myspace page and I guess it wasn't exactly objective. I didn't mean to get his entry deleted, I just thought that the write up that was there was kinda short and uninformative. I'm wondering if you'd reconsider because now I feel bad. I know for a fact that the article wasn't started by Bob Ricci, but I think it's my fault that it got removed. If you want 3rd party reassurance that he belongs on here, do a simple google search on "Bob Ricci" in quotes. I'm showing 24,000 matches and lots of third party references to him. Plus, his song "She Blocked Me" is currently availabe on Ebaum's World, Albinoblacksheep.com, and a ton of other sites. He also passes WP:MUSIC since it's been on the charts in Canada, UK, Australia, and even Germany (due to a flash video being done by a German fan) and is also on regular rotation on actually quite a few radio stations even in the US (check his site for a list of upcoming radio interviews he has on actual stations) He's also in rotation on National Lampoon's official satellite radio station. We fans have been able to collaborate a complete discography of his CDs and also unreleased material here on WP, and it's a shame to see it go. I hope you'll take this into consideration.

Also, in his deletion discussion, somebody mentioned the fact that "anybody with a CD burner can have a CD for sale", but Bob Ricci is on iTunes, and not "anybody with a CD burner" can be on iTunes. They have a strict screening policy. I know this first hand cause I can't get myself on there for the life of me. Read their policy. So label or not, he's recognized as a musician, and there are a lot of noted musicians who forgo a label in the music industry's current state. There also seemed to be a fair amount of posts supporting that the article remain, and it seems as if the people who argued for deletion didn't really research very much. They simply said that the article was written for vanity (which was a subjective opinion with no support) or that Bob wasn't notable enough (which doesn't make sense to me because of the sheer amount of info out there on him), or that he didn't pass WP:Music, but he does by a few stipulations if you'd do the research.

I'm all for what WP stands for and believe me, if I didn't feel that Bob deserved to be on here I wouldn't be making these arguements. But I feel that he more than qualifies. Just because a few WP admins haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's on here for vanity. And as I said, his WP page was created and maintained by his fans. SSMatt 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, you'll need to provide some WP:Reliable Sources that provide evidence of Bob Ricci's notability. The AfD result appears valid based on the information available at the time; if you want the decision overturned, you'll need to provide significant new (that is, not presented at the time of the AfD) information about his notability. Powers ^T 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Valid AfD with consensus closure. If your comments are correct and you can supply the sources, a rewrite shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't sound like there was anything salvageable though if you took it from myspace.com. ~ trialsanderrors 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was up forever before I rewrote it and it never got deleted. Is there a way I can get a copy of the original article before I updated it? Or should I just attempt a rewrite? I'd like to preserve the unreleased stuff since a lot of different fans contributed to it and I don't know it offhand. As for sources.. I mean.. well.. it's google. You can just type in Bob Ricci in quotes and see the 24,000 hits. It looks like over 90% of those links refer back to the Bob we're talking about. Unless he's got 24,000 web pages he maintains about himself.. it's pretty obvious to see that people are interested in him. And reading through some of these other deletion overturns, "thousands" of google hits was enough to convince an overturn of a previous entry. We're talking 24,000 here! That's not reliable? iTunes isn't reliable? You just type his name in the search. I'm not sure how to link directly to an artist on iTunes. I can link to his video on Ebaum's. Is this enough info? I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do. It's not that hard to see how popular he is. I feel like I'm scrounging to defend something that's pretty obvious. SSMatt 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you google search "She Blocked Me" (his most popular song) in quotes it pulls up 60,000 hits. The first two being ebaum's and albinoblacksheep, two of the largest humor sites for this type of media on the web. Then the list goes on and on from there. SSMatt 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you can request userfication (still not sure if that's a word) at WP:DRV. On those "reliable" things, just read WP:RS. Best is if you collect reviews of his material from major newspapers and magazines, look for evidence that he passes a criterion in WP:MUSIC, etc. Our job isn't to write about Bob Ricci, it's to summarize what others wrote about Bob Ricci. ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion fanpage/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]