Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 15

< December 14	Deletion review archives: December	December 16 >

15 December 2006

Flash Flash Revolution

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

All Regional squad Template

And please read the rest of the list in November 21, November 17, November 13, October 17.

Delete all or
Delete all except Champions Keeping regional (& Confederations Cup) Champions squad. that's equal for Euro and Asian Cup. And/or
Delete all except Current event Keeping last regional squad (Euro 2004, 2005 Confederations Cup), that's is England and Lativa.

As the usage of squad template discussed in August 11, a notable world-class player would play more than three "A" event, just like Paolo Maldini and Shunsuke Nakamura, and current squad list (2006 FIFA World Cup squads) is enough to provide the function as the squad Template adding to the player's article.

There is no sense the template showing he won the champions or not, as we can replacing it to medal template.

Matthew_hk t c 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per unanimous delete !votes, which shows something.. I don't understand what you're saying, either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette's Guy

Just Cause 2

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

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

You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. A ecis ^{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]

Mavis McClure

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

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]

Red Labor

I created the article on this artist group and it was speedy-deleted by Teke. I left a message on their talk page on November 28, 2006 and have heard no response. Teke cited G11 "Blatant advertising" as the reason for deletion but "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I would like to see the article up for an AfD vote as they have some good article contributions in the graphic design community. JohnRussell 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somari

The original premise for deletion was entirely invalid. (Somari is not a simple graphics hack; it is a very impressive conversion of a game from the Genesis to the NES, which itself makes it notable -- there are very few comparable examples. Porting a game to a different platform without the source code is generally a difficult feat even today; it's even more amazing back when it was made.) Several votes of "delete per nom" were explicitly based on this invalid premise. This seemed to have gone unnoticed until two days before the article was deleted, with the majority of votes that indicated any awareness of this coming on the last day. I'm convinced that if the debate had lasted longer, the outcome would be different. Therefore I'm posting this for deletion review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellflower (movie)

The reason for deletion is unclear Bennytrek 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette's Guy – This isn't going to change, unless someone comes with a good article on it. Please come back when/if you do. – 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.