Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 15

Flash Flash Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (VFD)

The result is pretty clearly delete due to no reliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "It's notable OMG", ignoring the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. You can't just ignore the issue and get it kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete: As above, no reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. I have to be consistent here, it's obviously notable enough for an article, but we won't be able to sustain one until our sourcing policies catch up to reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not an appeals court; with 5 votes for redirect, 4 keeps (3 of them strong), and 5 deletes, I think it's fairly obvious that there was no consensus. I further point out the potential bad faith motives of SPUI, who has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past. - 71.64.159.158 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, that was me. I forgot to log in. - Chardish 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. AfD is not a vote. If there is no evidence of reliable sources given, the article can't be kept. WarpstarRider 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the the section on "Purpose". Again, this is not an appeals court, nor is this a reopening of the discussion. This is a debate about whether the closer misinterpreted the AfD debate. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn the discussion to show that there was a consensus during the previous discussion, not to attempt to prove that their original point was correct. - Chardish 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says that that Deletion Review is to be used "if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer", which is what has happened here. If you look at the Deletion Guidelines for administrators page, under "Rough Consensus", it says quite clearly,

    Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

    If the article has no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. WarpstarRider 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that the current article lacks reliable sources. This makes it a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. Only truly unverifiable articles should be deleted. - Chardish 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. WarpstarRider 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's obvious that the article could be made verifiable, you have a point. In the absence of showing one or two sourced, it isn't obvious that it could be. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. No sources, no verifiability, no article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No sources, no verifiability, no article" sounds like the exact same thing WarpstarRider said, only paraphrased. I hope he's not canvassing. - Chardish 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like No ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. WP:V is not negotiable. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously some people wish to keep the article, both originally and here. I presume they do so because they think they can improve it, which isthis case seems to mean finding sources.DGG 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then they could just end this by providing a source, instead of just saying they exist and that someone will do it sometime. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete unless someone comes up with some reliable sources. MER-C 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Users Ashibaka and MER-C have, within the past 24 hours, blanked the page in question and replaced it with a redirect. Ashibaka's edit summary, whose summary contained "goodbye article," seemed to be an attempt at a fiat deletion. - Chardish 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I don't see a single keep vote that actually uses policy. I'd really like to know how this got closed as no consensus, since the keep votes were completely nonpolicy and spurious. Improper closure. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per verifiability policy. Tizio 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. It is true that AFD (and DRV) are not the "article cleanup squad". However, for an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist. A Google search that filters out WP, the FFR site, and the primary FFR mirror reveals a whole lot of forum posts, linkfarms and crosslinking between other flash and game sites, but those aren't reliable for our purposes. Note that the convincing sounding Judy's Book review is actually a user-content site much akin to livejournal. This .pdf article might be reliable (I'm uncertain), but the mention of FFR is absolutely trivial (in a list of DDR imitators in the last sentence). Otherwise, this blurb from the company whose software is used for the multiplayer aspect of FFR, saying, basically, "Hey, those people used our stuff!", but I do not believe that is either non-trivial or independent. I can't prove that there aren't any sources, but it doesn't seem at all likely. If there are some, as always, the article can be recreated later through another DRV. Serpent's Choice 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

numerous assertions of importance in the article. with plenty of sources as cited before Mrtwo 12:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, on the contrary, the article was entirely unsourced and had no verifiability with reliable sources, much less notability. --Coredesat 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been through an AfD, but not under this name (however, it was a copy-pasted re-creation of the article that was deleted at AfD). The AfD link has been provided. --Coredesat 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion until such time as those often promised but never delivered reliable sources materialise. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has also been through Deletion review around a month ago, under the other article name, the final version before being closed can be seen here, and the closing of the review can be seen here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreaded Walrus (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy close. Already went through several deletions, AfD, DRV, and nomination made in bad faith by a single-purpose account. --Wafulz 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Like Wafulz said, it's been through several deletions among other things. RedKlonoa 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing new apparently and my deletion has already been reviewed and endorsed at DRV, so this DRV should probably be speedy closed by an uninvolved admin. --W.marsh 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a copy of the article being worked on at User:Lantoka/Sandbox2. Those who wish for the article to be undeleted have the best chance of success by helping bring that up to standards. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I am a fairly new user for wikipedia, and I have found and created many articles, and I am very happy to be here editing with all of you. That being said, I recently was showed Danny or the Tourettes Guy at work. I don't have much of a sense of humor, but I thought it was mildly funny, and definitely a pop culture trend for today's comedy lovers. As I naturally do with things I discover, I looked this thing up on wikipedia, and was shocked to find out that it was not there. Not only that, but I could not edit because it was protected. I believe this is very notable, I looked on Alexa rankings and many search engines to see how popular it was, and I found it was quite notable. I really hope I can at least get some of you to agree with me that this deserves an article on wikipedia. If you don't agree, I can always try to make a proposed article on my talk page, and you can see if it is worthy. Give me your ideas. Of course, I would say Strong Overturn. Thanks Fortyniners9999 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredibly speedy endorse deletion with no disrespect at all to the nominator. We've been through this about a dozen times, including just a few days ago. The article has been deleted many, many times before as lack of notability shown via reliable sources. -- Kicking222 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Cause 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

When this article of a future video game was created, it had absolutely no sources. Predictably, somebody nominated it for deletion. The first few votes were for delete. Then I found 4 sources confirming that this game is in fact in development. The main source was an interview to Swedish magazine Kong by the the CEO of Just Cause maker Avalanche Studios, Christopher Sundberg. [1] In the published interview, he confirmed it was actually being made and gave some more information on it. Not alot, but it was certainly a confirmation. The source article was credited to reporter Jonny Knutsson. At least one vote was changed to "keep" after this new information was added. But the closing administrator chose to delete this citing there were no "reliable sources". I very much disagree that the company CEO and the magazine he interviewed with, along with credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, is not a reliable source. I tried being bold in recreating this article with this source, plus two more English language ones confirming the first [2][3], (plus some nice wikification) but it was deleted and locked by the first closing administrator. I respecfually disagree and feel this article of a sequel to a very popular game should be re-created. --Oakshade 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Sources provided are from late October and say that the game is confirmed as being in the company's product pipeline - the game designers have just started coming up with the master game design document, if they've started at all. This might be worth a mention in the original game's article but this sequel hardly merits its own article yet - especially in an industry infamous for vapourware. I kind of understand people who want to create articles for future games and films etc when there has been substantial marketing buzz (though we have to be careful that Wikipedia is not coopted into such efforts), but in this case there isn't even any buzz. Just a brief confirmation that the proposal for the sequel has been officially accepted by the company's bureaucracy. Bwithh 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure only for the sake of consistency. When this is announced by something a little more reliable, I'll gladly fight to overturn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What is the point of an article which says "This is a game. It may be released at some date in the future."? Because that's all the info you have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some more info than that, ie, the scenescapes would be different with descriptions and what platforms it was being made for. Even though that's arguably not alot, this can be considered a standard "let it grow" scenario. --Oakshade 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is to have an article ready for expansion, especially for anons/new users who can't create them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New users can create them. And an article ready for expansion is very good, if it can be expanded. Not if it might be able to, at some undetermined point in the future where more info will be released. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, new users cannot create articles immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. This game is not released, and should either not exist or be a subsection in Just Cause. RedKlonoa 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, my !vote must have been accidentally overwritten at some point. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• More discussion has been requested above , but how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion DGG 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per procedure. Deletion review does not have the capacity to confirm the copyright status in situations like this.

  Slightly modified to be applicable for the situation:
  Please send an email to the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", where it will be securely archived. In the confirmation that you send to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", ensure that both the Internet URL for the original text which you are re-licensing under the Text of the GFDL and the a Wikipedia link to the intended target for the text is provided so that the Wikimedia PR department may cross reference the Wikimedia page image to the Internet URL text. This must be done through an official email affiliated (and listed) on the website as confirmation.
  After sending the email message to the Communications comittee, drop a note on the talk page (not the article itself) mentioning that permission has been sent to the m:OTRS system, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. Afterwards, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article talk with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question. Please note that providing the link to the ticket number is essential to easy verification.
  See also: Wikipedia:copyrights, Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, new editors claiming copyright thread on Wikilegal-l

As I mentioned previously, DRV has no capacity to do this - these instructions are the only way to do so. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion "permission for it to be used here" is inadequate, permission under the GFDL or a release to the public domain so that it can be used/modified etc. by anyone is what is required. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Rodefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per my comment at #Mavis McClure. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as above, "Permission to be used here" is inadequate. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What pgk means is that you need to explicitly place your work under the GNU Free Documentation License. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]