Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 14

Commander Dante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was in process of dramatic revision to cover a notable real-world historical figure. Discussion closed without adequate input from others regarding the real world historical figure. Article should be either undeleted so that the numerous improvements regarding the historical figure covered in numerous published books and TIME magazine can continue or be relisted to consider the coverage of this major Philippine leader. (see [1] and [2] for sources that were actively being incorporated into the article when article was illegitimately deleted. You'll also note that in these sources "Commander Dante" rather than the person's real name is how he is typically referred. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The historical figure's given name was apparently Bernardo Buscayno. The article that was deleted was apparently originally and chiefly about a figure from the Warhammer legendarium. No real opinion on that outcome, but the actual article that was deleted seems not to be an impediment about the creation of a new article about the historical figure. This title can always be made into a redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem lies in that some of the deleted content being added to the article is a firm basis for an article on the historical figure who was chiefly known as Commander Dante like how Josef Stalin is not known by his actual last name. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was strongly in favour of deletion and, in my view, your additions of bits about Bernardo Buscayno, the real-world Commander Dante, just made it more confused. If Bernardo Buscayno is notable, by all means create an article about him, rather than hijacking a dubious in-universe Warhammer 40,000 character article to save it from a deserved deletion. The fact that there's another person who goes by the same name does not make the original subject of the article any more notable - make him his own article untarnished by this one and I doubt anyone would have a problem. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more than happy to do that using the new material I had added to this article. There's no reason why I should have to start over. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I checked the article maybe an hour before the AfD closed, I don't recall there being much more than a sentence on the real-world guy. But by all means, I wouldn't object to userification of the article if you do think there was something to be salvaged on Bernardo Buscayno - he certainly sounds notable on principle. I'd object to wholesale article-space restoration of the article, as it was still primarily about the WH40k character for whom a delete consensus was pretty clear. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as the deletion was pretty clear-cut. I would be more than willing to provide LGRC with a userfied copy of the material regarding Bernardo Buscayno if he wishes but there's no reason to run around overturning perfectly valid deletions. Shereth 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion was premature, which is why it is invalid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Premature in what way? The argument ran for a full 5 days. Shereth 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the end of the discussion I proposed my idea for a rewrite and notified the relevant deletion sorting threads. We should have heard from them. We don't have to stay too firm to the five day thing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not only was the deletion clear cut, LGRC's concern was specifically addressed in the deletion rationale. The page isn't protected, so an article can easily be created on the other Commander Dante. --Smashville^BONK! 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need the content that I had added in order to create such an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. This DRV is breathtakingly specious, and in my mind approaches an abuse of process. mazca's description of this as a "hijacking" seems apropos. Your wish to write an article about Person B is in no way compromised by the deletion of an article about Person A. To argue otherwise is simply untenable. Nandesuka (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please approach these dischussions honestly and seriously. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always do. Nandesuka (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That unconstructive comment suggests otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::*Endorse deletion and suggest speedy close - LGRC has been repeatedly advised that if he wants material from a deleted article to try to create an article that meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines all he need do is ask any admin to userfy it for him. Yet instead of doing this, he seemingly invariably opts for the DRV route. This refusal to request userficiation and instead tie up his and the community's resources in countless DRVs is tantamount to an abuse of process. There was nothing procedurally wrong with the close of this AFD, and as usual no valid reason for overturning the deletion has been offered. If LGRC spent half the time he spends on frivolous AFD defenses and picking DRV fights on writing articles in his user space, he could have already written an acceptable article on the historical figure and put it in place. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What's funny is you never provide any valid reason as to why you renominate so many articles for deletion that were decisively kept and somehow don't see that as an abuse of process. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, see, the thing is, it's your behaviour that's under discussion here, not mine. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've frankly given up on even commenting on Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's DRVs of my closures; it's a waste of time. But editors may be interested in participating in the related ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFD and DRV behavior as Disruptive.  Sandstein  22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and go and write an article about Bernardo Buscayno. Here's the full content of what you added to Commander Dante (entirely by you, no other contributors, so don't try any specious "but the GFDL will be violated if you don't restore!"). --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bernardo Buscayno,^[1] who became military leader of the New People's Army^[2] in the Philippines in October 1970^[3] during the First Quarter Storm. William Chapman refers to Dante as one of the "ideological Huks."^[4]

There's no reason not to have just done so on of the article that I had already started working on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion and speedy close as vexatious abuse of process. The deletion case was quite clear, and this whole maneuvre about the rewrite is nothing but obvious filibustering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's blatantly dishonest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, this is an AFD 2.0 nomination. Again, an article about the historical figure is more than welcome, but this was pretty clear. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in the process of doing that when it was deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and speedy close - DRV is not AfD round two. This amounts to nothing more than gaming the system. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnifex (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contesting prod. The group hit the Billboard charts with their Victory Records release in 2008. Chubbles (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarr3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Admin deleted the image, stating "Not valid to use an image from a TV program on the article about a person starring in the program." I advised the admin that this was not an image from a TV show and that it was not being used to illustrate an article about a person who appeared in a TV show. Admin then switched his deletion rationale to WP:NFCC item 1. I pointed out that no free image exists and, since this is a photograph from 1964, there is no way to create a free equivalent absent heretofore unknown time travel technology. Admin then switched his rationale again, to CFDD item 8 saying "You are using the image as an image of the living person. A free image of that person could reasonably be taken and released under a free license. An image of the person as he appeared in 1964 (or whenever) does not satisfy NFCC#8." However, I do not agree that #8 applies here, as the image (a photograph of the article's subject assuming the throne of Empress of the Imperial Court System and his first Imperial Court) is not being used merely to show what Sarria looked like in 1964, but to show the significance of his assumption of the throne and how the Court presented itself for its public debut. Text cannot adequately describe this presentation. No free image of the Imperial Court of 1964 can be created. The image satisfies our requirements for non-free images of living persons. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Whatever the NFCC number quoted, the result is correct. The image had no proper copyright information, no real information about what it actually showed (was that a scene from some staged public action, or a private snapshot from some party, or a poster, or what?), a blatantly untrue FU rationale ("for illustration and critical commentary", when there was not a shadow of such commentary in the article). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the outcome here, I just wanted to thank you for assuming good faith and not calling me a liar. Oh wait, you didn't assume good faith and you did call me a liar. Otto4711 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No Comment on whether the image is acceptable or not, but this is a clearly incorrect speedy deletion. The image was deleted per CSD I7 which explicitly only allows immediate deletion for "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot)". As User:Stifle is asserting that the image failed WP:NFCC, it should only have been deleted "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader", to allow him to make his case as to why the image did not fail NFCC. There was no notification of the uploader. --Stormie (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion per Fut. Perf.'s excellent rationale. To Stormie: the user was notified on the very upload page. He chose "fair use image of a living person" at the upload page, which as you will see if you go there and try it yourself, loads a template explicitly warning the user that the image may be deleted by any administrator after 48 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I appreciate that Otto4711 made the effort to discuss the deletion with me as per the instructions on this page rather than just going straight to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I must confess, I'm not a big uploader of images, and I doubt I've ever selected the "fair use image of a living person" option, so I've not seen that warning. I think for the interests of drama-avoidance, though, it would still be better to follow the route of leaving a note on the uploader's talk page and deleting 48 hours later. --Stormie (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse You can't possibly expect to upload an image of 9 different people and expect to be able to use it as a FU image of a living person. Deletion was outwith the rules but clearly the only acceptable outcome. process doesn't trump common sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbgmem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UnqualifiedDecision Moser michael (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- the deleted page only outlines features and functioning of a open source memory debugger; very similar to all existing pages in referenced by [Memory Debugger]

• Endorse clear advertisting with no evidence that the product was in anyway notable. While A7 doesn't apply to products, G11 certainly does. Suggest re-writing in userspace with evidence of notability from reliable sources. TravellingCari 14:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sans deleted article the nominator has a total of two edits. Most new users in a similar situation aren't even attentive enough to fully read the deletion notice, much less make a properly formatted post to DELREV. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion per TravellingCari. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Peiyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was speedily deleted on the same day that it was created, by User:MrKIA11. Grounds given were WP:CSD#A7, no showing of importance. In fact, the subject of the article fairly easily meets WP:BIO. This is the girl who actually sang a song at the 2008 Olympic opening ceremonies, but who was apparently judged not pretty enough to actually appear in them, so a lip synch performer was substituted. The incident has been written up in multiple, reliable sources, including the Washington Post. — Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I actually just closed the discussion. The article was speedied on the 12th by Pegasus and again by Orangemike on the 13th for the same reason (A7). MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - wasn't sure about that. Will notice them also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn both, but just restore the August 12th version. It's much better than the one from the 13th. Even though she might not be notable (per WP:BIO1E), in my mind it's worth of a discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another possibility would simply be to redirect the page to 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony, which contains a segment about her already - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've gone ahead and redirected the page to 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Welcoming ceremony for now. Shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn Not sure if she's notable but definitely not A7. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "overturn" the only option? Have you considered maybe the redirect? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, the content in 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Welcoming ceremony is at least as detailed as any deleted revision of Yang Peiyi. Also, given WP:BLP1E, I'd have to say that the status quo is as it should be. I'm pretty sure that "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event," and that therefore "a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Stormie (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain the status quo (keep as redirect). I was wrong on the CSD A7 deletion, but she is non-notable apart from the Opening Ceremony incident. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect. See WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Worth going through the formal process on this, on the off-chance that anyone with better info on Chinese entertainers has any input. Townlake (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support process for the sake of process. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign subject that was already fumbled once under a speedy-fix rationale; it's worth giving the broader community a shot at showing there's broader notability here than the one event. (Good-faith question: did anyone look at Chinese / other Asian Wikipedias to see if there's sourced articles on the subject?) With respect, my opinion is hardly "process for the sake of process." Townlake (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect, WP:BLP1E applies. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect, she wasn't notable for anything before the event, she's barely notable for the event (she is a significant part of the news stories, but most are more about the event itself and the reaction than the people involved), and there's nothing to suggest she will be notable for anything in the near future. Seems a pretty clear-cut case of BLP1E to me. Mr.Z-man 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect per BLP1E. The subject herself is non-notable, even if the event *might* be. Ral315 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect BLP1E as thoroughly and correctly stated by Z-man. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse redirect she may become notable in the future but for now its one event issue and can be covered in sufficient detail the article about the opening ceremony. Gnangarra 09:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good redirect Cover the event, not the person. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirection BLP1E applies here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]