31 December 2006

< December 30	Deletion review archives: December	January 1 >

Angry Nintendo Nerd – Speedily closed, no new information – 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Angry Nintendo Nerd is gaining internet fame and there are articles about many other internet video game/animation series on Wikipedia. Therefore the article should be undeleted and unprotected MikkoMan 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, endorsed numerous times (see here and follow links to deletion review subpages), no new evidence. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close... not again. It's barely been two weeks. No new evidence. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please create an article in user space first and list here for review. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed, article currently userfied – 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` I made the article after Ace Combat X Super Aircraft was deleted to improve the article to make sure it met the requirements that were given then it was speed deleted with no reason as to what was wrong with it so I remade it and posted on the talk page asking what was wrong with it but it was speed deleted again without telling me what was wrong with it so I could fix it.Sam ov the blue sand 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion Pointed the AfD to point to the AfD mentioned by the deletion log. Anyways, primary sources ("play the game") cannot be used to argue for an article's existence (WP:OR) and there's no third-party reliable sources. It's also written in a way that nonplayers cannot understand what's going on, violating WP:FICT. Find third-party reliable sources that talk about this subject in detail, keeping in mind that fan websites, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Wait a second Eletrosphere is a good source it has more info than us I always take away the fanfiction from it though but its not that much. Please point out any fanfiction (Fancruft also) you see there. I guess I could find a source to replace the Ace Combat place I'll get working on that. And how am I supposed to fix the article when I cannot edit it to make so that nonplayers can also read it.Sam ov the blue sand 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] What is this "Eletrosphere" thing you're talking about? You never mentioned this in the original AfD. Unfortunately, quantity of information doesn't always imply quality of information, or even reliability of information. ColourBurst 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Acually I made this article without first obtaining the aircraft in the game so at first most of the info came from there then I added my own info. Eletrosphere has both quanity and quality only some of the info is fan based and I always delete that info.Sam ov the blue sand 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Reliable sources are needed, and you do not have them. Having lots of info does not imply reliability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] These are articles on in-universe information which is mostly derived from primary sources (the game itself). Sections like this are split out when they get too long for the parent article, such as List of Final Fantasy X characters. For example, the featured article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, includes plot and character summaries which given your incorrect application of RS means they should be deleted. RS isn't the be all and end all, primary sources are valid. Now, if the entire subject (the game) lacked reliable secondary sources, then it probably isn't notable, of which this is not the case. - hahnch e n 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] And there are absolutely no sources outside of the game which give the plot of MGS3, or the characters in FFX? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, game guides are definitely going to have information on them and fan sites. But generally, reviews and critical commentary are not going to cover the characters and plot. You're certainly not going to find a plot synopsis of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask on LexisNexus. It's not just computer games for which this is the case, but with other articles using primary sourced information, such as the plot synopsis in Dog Day Afternoon. I'm not saying that the outcome of the AFD was incorrect (yet), just that your reasoning seems flawed. - hahnch e n 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fansites, if big enough, I consider acceptable sources, although not enough to ever get FA quality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think any good fansites gave this information, either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] For a series as long running as Ace Combat, there's bound to be fansites and walkthroughs published in the gaming press. But that's not even that relevant as the primary source for the article (the game itself) is perfectly adequate and can be verified in game. As in the example articles mentioned above, why should fan sites be cited for plot synopses when we can use its primary source, ie the film/game itself. - hahnch e n 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Well, there are several schools of thought on this. One would prefer plot summaries and character summaries not from the primary source material itself, but I realize it's hard to get this kind of thing without violating copyrights (of whomever writes the plot summary). I looked at Spira (Final Fantasy X), and the only WP:RS there is the Ultimania guide (my guess is that this is enough to satisfy WP:V). The other school of thought is that until somebody writes critical commentary on the subject of the planes in Ace Combat (this isn't impossible; people write essays on the impact of games and plots all the time, though how many end up in academic journals (or even in RPGamer and such sites) is unclear, due to the anti-modernist bias of most literature departments.), that aspect of the game is not verifiable. It might also be pertinent to take a mergist attitude and cut down and merge the planes into the Ace Combat article itself (and by this I mean one line per plane). However, I cannot accept The Electrosphere (the fansite that sam was talking about) as an RS because there is material that is known to be unreliable there. ColourBurst 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per ColourBurst and Amarkov. Fails WP:RS I understand that and I will find one if not two but when I find them how will I edit the article when I can't edit the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] You can ask an administrator (try asking at User talk:Proto as Proto deleted it) to userfy you a copy, that is create a copy of the deleted article at User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. You can edit it there to add the sources and come back here when you're ready. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sam, you stated when the article was deleted for the third time that you have a copy saved (plus you have been able to recreate it already on multiple occasions). Proto::► 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Actually after the first time I had to find all the info again and rewrite it then I made the copy onto a disk as I do with all other articles I care about (better to be safe than sorry), so yes I have the info. But can someone create a link to where I can write another until its ready to come here. Sad I can't find any links all of them are complete crap like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outerspace". I f somone could stumple upon one that would be great.Sam ov the blue sand 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] 'Endorse deletion fails WP:RS (per Amarkov), WP:FICT (per ColourBurst). Brendan Alcorn 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why are you even voting I don't think people care until I'm done with User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft so why vote on an old thing?Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed, article currently userfied – 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I made the article after Ace Combat X Super Aircraft was deleted to improve the article to make sure it met the requirements that were given then it was speed deleted with no reason as to what was wrong with it so I remade it and posted on the talk page asking what was wrong with it but it was speed deleted again without telling me what was wrong with it so I could fix it.Sam ov the blue sand 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion Pointed the AfD to point to the AfD mentioned by the deletion log. Anyways, primary sources ("play the game") cannot be used to argue for an article's existence (WP:OR) and there's no third-party reliable sources. It's also written in a way that nonplayers cannot understand what's going on, violating WP:FICT. Find third-party reliable sources that talk about this subject in detail, keeping in mind that fan websites, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second Eletrosphere is a good source it has more info than us I always take away the fanfiction from it though but its not that much. Please point out any fanfiction (Fancruft also) you see there. I guess I could find a source to replace the Ace Combat place I'll get working on that. And how am I supposed to fix the article when I cannot edit it to make so that nonplayers can also read it.Sam ov the blue sand 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Eletrosphere" thing you're talking about? You never mentioned this in the original AfD. Unfortunately, quantity of information doesn't always imply quality of information, or even reliability of information. ColourBurst 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acually I made this article without first obtaining the aircraft in the game so at first most of the info came from there then I added my own info. Eletrosphere has both quanity and quality only some of the info is fan based and I always delete that info.Sam ov the blue sand 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Reliable sources are needed, and you do not have them. Having lots of info does not imply reliability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These are articles on in-universe information which is mostly derived from primary sources (the game itself). Sections like this are split out when they get too long for the parent article, such as List of Final Fantasy X characters. For example, the featured article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, includes plot and character summaries which given your incorrect application of RS means they should be deleted. RS isn't the be all and end all, primary sources are valid. Now, if the entire subject (the game) lacked reliable secondary sources, then it probably isn't notable, of which this is not the case. - hahnchen 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there are absolutely no sources outside of the game which give the plot of MGS3, or the characters in FFX? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, game guides are definitely going to have information on them and fan sites. But generally, reviews and critical commentary are not going to cover the characters and plot. You're certainly not going to find a plot synopsis of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask on LexisNexus. It's not just computer games for which this is the case, but with other articles using primary sourced information, such as the plot synopsis in Dog Day Afternoon. I'm not saying that the outcome of the AFD was incorrect (yet), just that your reasoning seems flawed. - hahnchen 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fansites, if big enough, I consider acceptable sources, although not enough to ever get FA quality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think any good fansites gave this information, either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For a series as long running as Ace Combat, there's bound to be fansites and walkthroughs published in the gaming press. But that's not even that relevant as the primary source for the article (the game itself) is perfectly adequate and can be verified in game. As in the example articles mentioned above, why should fan sites be cited for plot synopses when we can use its primary source, ie the film/game itself. - hahnch e n 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, there are several schools of thought on this. One would prefer plot summaries and character summaries not from the primary source material itself, but I realize it's hard to get this kind of thing without violating copyrights (of whomever writes the plot summary). I looked at Spira (Final Fantasy X), and the only WP:RS there is the Ultimania guide (my guess is that this is enough to satisfy WP:V). The other school of thought is that until somebody writes critical commentary on the subject of the planes in Ace Combat (this isn't impossible; people write essays on the impact of games and plots all the time, though how many end up in academic journals (or even in RPGamer and such sites) is unclear, due to the anti-modernist bias of most literature departments.), that aspect of the game is not verifiable. It might also be pertinent to take a mergist attitude and cut down and merge the planes into the Ace Combat article itself (and by this I mean one line per plane). However, I cannot accept The Electrosphere (the fansite that sam was talking about) as an RS because there is material that is known to be unreliable there. ColourBurst 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per ColourBurst and Amarkov. Fails WP:RS

I understand that and I will find one if not two but when I find them how will I edit the article when I can't edit the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an administrator (try asking at User talk:Proto as Proto deleted it) to userfy you a copy, that is create a copy of the deleted article at User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. You can edit it there to add the sources and come back here when you're ready. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you stated when the article was deleted for the third time that you have a copy saved (plus you have been able to recreate it already on multiple occasions). Proto::► 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after the first time I had to find all the info again and rewrite it then I made the copy onto a disk as I do with all other articles I care about (better to be safe than sorry), so yes I have the info. But can someone create a link to where I can write another until its ready to come here. Sad I can't find any links all of them are complete crap like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outerspace". I f somone could stumple upon one that would be great.Sam ov the blue sand 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse deletion fails WP:RS (per Amarkov), WP:FICT (per ColourBurst). Brendan Alcorn 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even voting I don't think people care until I'm done with User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft so why vote on an old thing?Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of famous men who wear briefs – Speedy endorse – 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of famous men who wear briefs (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` There are sources that clearly prove this is a notable list. The closing admin let his own judgment get in the way when he closed it. He was acting in a very very biased manner. This article should be undeleted so it can be expanded upon. It is not "listcruft, as you call it. KeyLigger 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Usual briefsism bullshit. I'm closing this. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of famous men who wear briefs – Speedy endorse – 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There are sources that clearly prove this is a notable list. The closing admin let his own judgment get in the way when he closed it. He was acting in a very very biased manner. This article should be undeleted so it can be expanded upon. It is not "listcruft, as you call it. KeyLigger 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usual briefsism bullshit. I'm closing this. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Khalil Kalfat – Article userfied at User:Meno25/Khalil Kalfat – 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khalil Kalfat (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Sources found to establish notability [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. cab 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Can you summarize what they say? ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I can't read arabic, but the autotranslator did pick out his name in sources 1-3, 5. The French source #4, in taking about another writer says that Khalil Kalfat strongly influenced writers in the 1960's. I don't know if it is the same person or not. --Bejnar 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Actually my reading is "d’autres écrivains et critiques, comme Khalil Kalfat qui a contribué largement à jeter la lumière sur la génération d’écrivains des années 1960." "other writers and critics, like Khalil Kalfat who has largely contributed to shed light on the generation of writers of the 1960's" I don't think that's sufficient to overturn the AfD decision. Not sure how to proceed with this one. Userfy if someone with Arbaic language skills asks for it? ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Userfy, pending someone who reads Arabic to translate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] First find someone to work on it that reads Arabic, then userfy for them. Until that person steps forward, endorse closure. I note that the DRV requester here has babel boxes, not including Arabic. GRBerry 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I raised the DRV to assist the original creator who is new to Wikipedia. I'll wait for him to respond, as my Arabic is minimal and he's already insulted my skills in the language once. BTW, I believe that's his picture on source #2. (Matches what's on arwiki: ar:خليل كلفت). "cab 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Undelete. I am a native speaker of Arabic. I have read the Arabic sources (but not the French as my French is not very good) and confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Google gives 17 300 results for his name in Arabic All of the given Arabic sources are about the same person. The link to the Arabic Wikipedia is also correct. Also, I would like to add that these sources are not trivial. The article is within the scope of the newly formed WikiProject Egypt. In addition, I am ready to translate any text from Arabic to English or vice versa.--Meno25 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Any administrator can copy the article and paste it at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Khalil Kalfat for example until the article is well translated and sourced then it is moved to the Main name space. After all, as you know, the best result of an afd is a rescued article.--Meno25 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Khalil Kalfat – Article userfied at User:Meno25/Khalil Kalfat – 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sources found to establish notability [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. cab 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize what they say? ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read arabic, but the autotranslator did pick out his name in sources 1-3, 5. The French source #4, in taking about another writer says that Khalil Kalfat strongly influenced writers in the 1960's. I don't know if it is the same person or not. --Bejnar 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my reading is

"d’autres écrivains et critiques, comme Khalil Kalfat qui a contribué largement à jeter la lumière sur la génération d’écrivains des années 1960."

"other writers and critics, like Khalil Kalfat who has largely contributed to shed light on the generation of writers of the 1960's"

I don't think that's sufficient to overturn the AfD decision. Not sure how to proceed with this one. Userfy if someone with Arbaic language skills asks for it? ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, pending someone who reads Arabic to translate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First find someone to work on it that reads Arabic, then userfy for them. Until that person steps forward, endorse closure. I note that the DRV requester here has babel boxes, not including Arabic. GRBerry 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I raised the DRV to assist the original creator who is new to Wikipedia. I'll wait for him to respond, as my Arabic is minimal and he's already insulted my skills in the language once. BTW, I believe that's his picture on source #2. (Matches what's on arwiki: ar:خليل كلفت). "cab 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Undelete. I am a native speaker of Arabic. I have read the Arabic sources (but not the French as my French is not very good) and confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Google gives 17 300 results for his name in Arabic All of the given Arabic sources are about the same person. The link to the Arabic Wikipedia is also correct. Also, I would like to add that these sources are not trivial. The article is within the scope of the newly formed WikiProject Egypt. In addition, I am ready to translate any text from Arabic to English or vice versa.--Meno25 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any administrator can copy the article and paste it at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Khalil Kalfat for example until the article is well translated and sourced then it is moved to the Main name space. After all, as you know, the best result of an afd is a rescued article.--Meno25 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.