Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Skies (machinima)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. Lots of heat and little light. If this was an "normal" independent film, released a week ago and with a little interest on blogs and forums, sourced by a forum and one news story, then it would be deleted without a second thought. I don't see why this is any different. No prejudice to recreation should it actually become notable. Black Kite 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear Skies (machinima)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable machinima production released only a week ago, with the only source being forums. Apparently it is "extremely popular" because the forum thread has had "hundreds of replies". Also, being linked to by the developers is not an indication of notability. Non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable, third-party sources is. Drat (Talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wow. I looked at the movie a bit, and it looks pretty impressive.  If it catches on outside of the world of machinima forums, it probably could get enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a wikipedia article! But until then.... - Seidenstud (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - Why community of thousands doesnt warrant entry? and why should people who have nothing to do with machinima, decide whether its notable work or not.. only the machinima community can decide that I would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmageddon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The number of members in the game's community is not an argument for keeping this. By that logic, we'd have to make articles for every piece of World of Warcraft machinima ever made because it has 10 million players. You need to show that the film has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Forums and 99.999% of blogs are not reliable.--Drat (Talk) 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable - The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect.  This fact alone warrants the wiki. - CraziFuzzy (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's artistic quality needs to have been covered by reliable, etc, etc. sources as I have said above. Your personal analysis is not sufficient (See WP:NOR). As for multiple engines, other machinima productions released years ago have done this.-Drat (Talk) 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - To what standard do you then use to judge artistic quality? I fail to see how you can determine who's opinion would be considered more 'reliable' than the movie's target audience.  CraziFuzzy (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinions of critics who are well known, writing for publications with a reputation for fact checking and peer review. The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing, as forums are not reliable sources. If you check the references section for Red vs. Blue you will see many references from reliable publications.--Drat (Talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do NOT Delete

This is a ground breaking movie/production/machinima, what ever you want to call it. This type of thing has never been done before in eve, i mean, that in itself has got to warrant this atical being kept.

This is a fantastic piece of work put together through literally YEARS of work and has had a huge impact on the world of EvE, over a thousand posts on the eve-online forums, with over eighty five thousand views of the posts! 20000 downloads at just one mirror, and there are a total of 9 mirrors, not to mention all the torrent files that exist.

I thought wikipedia was supposed to inform and add to society? Well, to be honest, i don't see how deleting such an ..dare i say it.. EPIC movie that has obivously brought hundreds and thousands of people together..well, how exactly can you jusitfy deleting this artical when so many people have enjoyed it so much and, now this it a major case in my arguement to keep this artical, so i'll put it in bold, even the game developers have taken the time out to post their amazment and approval (see bottom of post)

There is no doudt in my mind that this movie deserves a wikipedia artical.

Ok, to counter the posts for deletion:

"Seidenstud" - "Wow. I looked at the movie a bit, and it looks pretty impressive. If it catches on outside of the world of machinima forums, it probably could get enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a wikipedia article! But until then...."

You just need to read the statistics i have included in this talk page/reply, and feel free to go and check them for yourself: The forum sub section: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=29045 The post itself: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871

"Drat" - "The number of members in the game's community is not an argument for keeping this. By that logic, we'd have to make articles for every piece of World of Warcraft machinima ever made because it has 10 million players. You need to show that the film has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Forums and 99.999% of blogs are not reliable."

Well, to start off with, how can you call over a thousand posts not reliable??? i'm sorry but what you have posted here is, and to put it frank, utter rubbish in relation to this post. Fair enough, it just would not be justifiable for wiki to have an artical about every movie created, but ....over a thousand posts!.. i would be very very suprised if even a few of the movies in that big list of "machinima" ever got over a thousand posts combined within the first week of unvieling it to the public.

As for multiple sources, clear skies is featured on: Eve Online forums: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871 and, while this might not be completely independant, the developers went out of their way to even put the movie in the game's news: http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7   <- I have never seen that before

The Half Life 2 forums: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143190 The creator has been interviewed: http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38 LivePvP.com, with several posts telling of it's awsomeness: http://www.livepvp.com/watch/eve-online/clear-skies/ rockpapershotgun.com: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846

and i could go on and on, hell, it's even on the machinima forums: http://www.machinima.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=55702&sid=c2f355ee60afc851183a18beccbac37c

"Drat" - "It's artistic quality needs to have been covered by reliable, etc, etc. sources as I have said above. Your personal analysis is not sufficient (See WP:NOR). As for multiple engines, other machinima productions released years ago have done this"

Again, i disagree sir =]. As i have sead before, this kind of thing has never been seen in the eve universe before. This my friend is originality, applying an idea to a completely new spectrum, that spectrum being eve. As for the "Your personal analysis is not sufficient" remark, doesn't that make what you have just said, and by your own words "not sufficient" or irrelovent, finally on this point, the "personal analysis" of others is exactly what makes this website so efficent, so versatile, so great. So please get down of that high horse of yours. Ok, so that artical you linked opens with the following: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." I fail to see how any of this relates to this movie as it is not a "fact, argument, speculation, or an idea". It is simply a movie and by no means does it "serve to advance a position", thus making this artical irrelavent to your arguement. Please read any third party sources you post in to try and back you up in future, I'm sorry for being harsh mate, but thats how it is.

I also completely agree with "CraziFuzzy" here, his/her(sorry couldn't tell by the name =P) posts:

"The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"

"To what standard do you then use to judge artistic quality? I fail to see how you can determine who's opinion would be considered more 'reliable' than the movie's target audience"

Finally,

"Drat" - "The opinions of critics who are well known, writing for publications with a reputation for fact checking and peer review. The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing, as forums are not reliable sources. If you check the references section for Red vs. Blue you will see many references from reliable publications" 1. and i'm sorry to keep bringing this up but, over a thousand peoples views and opinions count for nothing? What planet are you on? Sure, MAYBE if it was 10, even 20 people and it stopped there, but this is way to many people to just disgard without a thought when they are all saying the same thing, that this movie was simply epic. I can not think of a better or bigger word that puts it so finely. 2. As for the references, this movie, or now more accuratly "Episode 1" has not had time to gain those awards or credentials. Plus, i think it is extremely unfair to be comparing something that is only just over a week old to something that has been up and running for years, no matter how great either of them are. 3. I have to be asking you this, but just exactly who do you think you are to be the judge of whose opinion is or isn't relivant, that they "count for nothing"? Your opinion is just as relevant as those "random people on a forum", i jsut can't seem to find the words to describe my annoence, putting it lightly, to how you seem to see yourself as better than other people, as more significant, as your opinions being more meaningful than others. ...ok ok, rant over

Drat, i respect you and the fact you are a very senior member of the wiki online community can only add to my respect, but comments such as "The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing" almost destroy that respect. Wikipedia is a public Exyclopidia for the sharing of knowledge. "random people" come on this forum everyday and add to that knowledge, how can you say their opinions count for nothing.

Please take a deep breath before you reply and don't try and dismiss peoples opinions as trivial next time.

Conculsion I am going to have to quote "CraziFuzzy" here, as he i think has put it perfectly: "The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"

plus, it must be pretty epic to spur me on to write this chunk of text =P

Developers posts: CCP Dionysus: "very very nice.. awesome" CCP Casqade: "Wow. This is exactly what I wanted.

Movies with story is always better than the regular flashy effects coordinated with music. I have been longing for something like this so long. Thank you so very much!

Great work! I want to buy you beer at Fanfest." ISD Deckard Bishop: "Amazing movie!

We want more! I think I speak for everyone when I say we need another episode! I'm sure you can cope without sleep for another year or two!!!" CCP Hastur: "oooh Very nice" CCP Whisper: "This is making the rounds of the office at the moment...everyone who's seen it has been blown away while laughing their heads off. Very well done sir, very well done. Very Happy

...now if you excuse me, I am off to prepare a pre-recorded message begging for help." CCP Oneiromancer: "Pure awesomeness!

Now I need to steal a hat to tip it to you. Possibily several hundred hats.

I can only hope that we will get to see some more of your and your team's amazing work in the future and if you come to the FanFest this year the entire QA department will drown you in beer and cookies." CCP Hunter.: "L O V E D I T ! ! ! !" CCP Whisper: "Actually if you go by the backstory there are numerous ships still piloted the "traditional" way as illustrated in this movie. Pod pilots are the elite of the EVE universe and better able to control their ships, but I would assume that at any given point and time there are more ships being flown the normal way than through pod technology. But that's me descending into deep RP again which leads to me wanting to have more NPC traffic actually warping in and out rather than just appearing in space like god's own film splice special effect.

Couple of us were talking about this movie in the pub this evening...every one of us already has a favourite line from this video. It got quoted and laughed about a lot, so again: Job well done." CCP Greyscale (a very senior/important dev member): "I laughed so hard my top wingy bit fell off.

You sir are a god among men and I salute you.

o7" CCP Navigator: "John Rourke,

Please take a bow and bask in the glory of being an EVE Online God.

That video was nothing short of brilliant.

o7"

and many many more, i will take the time tomorrow to post them you for you.

i'm sorry, but no matter how much you argue, but THESE people you cannot ignore of say that they are "random people" and "their opinion counts for nothing", they make the game!!!

Electricalplug (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The views and opinions expressed here are by no means those of of the "Clear Skies" production team or those of the eve online comminity, including developers. They are the sole opinions of a fan wanting to see a great peace of work duely recognised 86.13.148.14 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Electricalplug, I truly do appreciate your passion and efforts in trying to protect this article. However, your arguments and rebuttals are virtually consistently opposed to Wikipedia policy.  I urge you to read thoroughly the policies of verifiability and no original research, plus the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Having read those, I then urge you to reexamine your comments here objectively in the context of Wikipedia and it's policies.  After you better understand what exactly is going on here, I do hope you stick around and become an active editor, as your energy level could be quite an asset to this project.  -Seidenstud (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the creator of the article, I'm not sure if I'm entitled to a vote (not that this is really a vote anyway). However, I would like to at least add a couple of comments. I was a bit hesitant to create the article in the first place as I figured someone would come along and put it up for AfD. However, I still think the choice to create it was the correct one, and I believe the article should stay. Clear Skies is a landmark film which has caught the attention of a huge portion of the EVE community, not to mention a growing number of outside sources - a quick google of Clear Skies Machinima will show you that it has already been covered by dozens of independent sources. The fact that it has garnered this much attention from so many different sources in such a short amount of time would seem to indicate notability, and contradicts the statements of both the AfD proposer and the single delete vote. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is coverage out there that is reliable, non-trivial and independent of the subject, than by all means show it. Googling "clear skies" machinima gets 633 hits, with 154 unique. Leaving out forums, random blogs, trivial coverage (a few sentences, or nothing but a link), endless reprints of what looks like a short press release on various sites that seem to be linked to one another, and of course, links that have nothing to do with the film, I have found no significant coverage.--Drat (Talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is at least one article which is not a forum post, random blog or trivial - http://www.massively.com/2008/06/09/eve-online-meets-half-life-2-in-machinima-masterpiece/ - there is also an article at machinima.com however that site has been down all day so I haven't been able to access it. Finally, I'm not sure what exactly separates a "reliable" blog from a "random" one but here are examples of ones which may fall into the former category: http://yourblog.dell.com/2008/06/05/there’s-a-fine-line-between-gamer-and-tv-producer-apparently/ and http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniqueuponhim (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I currently have the following what i believe "no-trivial" coverage of this movie so far, and amassing more as the days go by:

A Review on Rock Paper Shotgun -> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846

Eve Online news piece (including this as it technically is indepentant as Ian isn't a member of the CCP or white wolf team) -> http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7

As mentioned about Massivley's Review of the movie -> http://www.massively.com/2008/06/09/eve-online-meets-half-life-2-in-machinima-masterpiece/

Warp Drive active podcast where Ian is interviewed on the making of this project -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38

Another podcast "Drone Bay", completely seperate from Warp drive active and features none of the same people, gives clear skies a thumbs up and advises all to watch it -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=17&ep=12

Ok, as for the link to Red vs Blue's Referance's section, i'm going to same again that comparing a show that has been up for years now and has hundreds of episodes to a series that is barely out of the wrapper it extremely unfair. Also, a lot of those links point inwards to wikipedia articals and some are pointing to the same location. I've even come across a few that doesn't exist at all. Now, after reading the links that Seidenstud posted up, i believe that a "reliable source" is one to be held in high esteem of those within the community it was created for and by some others outside that community. They give credit were credit is due and are generally very perticular about where there information comes from.

Ok, so assuming that i got this right, blogs such as the podcasts "The Drone Bay" and "Warp Drive active" and blogs such as "CrazyKinux's Musing" could, and should be included as reliable, not as "a forum post, random blog or trivial"

In relation to "Wikipedia:No original research", i still don't really understand how this apply's to "Clear Skies". As you said Drat, this concept of film making has happened before, and you corretly pointed to Red vs Blue, so this makes the "no original research" point invalide, espicially if a cross platform film has been producted before as you said Drat, and on this topic, are there any examples of these on wikipedia or floating around on the web that i can have a look at? Well, even if these cross platforms productions don't exist it still doesn't mean that this artical apply's the "Clear Skies" as the idea for it was born on the fact that machinima exists. Infact, how i see it, the adds another "reliable source" to the list as "Clear Skies" was born from the idea of machinima, all it is is just a different, and better in my opinion, branch to what most producers follow when creating a machinima production. This could even be the startings of a whole new type of machinima with it's Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources being the origanal machinima productions that have now been surpassed in terms of quality and context by this new thinking on an old idea

Finally in relation to "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" Section two (Pointing at policy ) says that to form a valide arguement for deletion, specific policy must be breached, and the only policy breach i can see that has been directed and apperently brocken by the "Clear Skies" Wiki page is the Verifiability policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V). There are other policy breaches in this discusion i know, but they ahve been directed at me, not the "Clear Skies" page =P. Anyway, havn't both Ian and myself both proved that policy to not apply to clear skies? Espicially as Ian is the creator of this movie, that should surely blow the Verifiability issue right out of the water surely?

If i am mistaken, or if you see any of the points above as invalide please don't hessitate to point it out, also explinations on anything i might have gotten myself confused over would be very must appriciated.

Also, i've had a look and as of yet, i can't find any true, and distinct cross platform productions to the scale and context of clear skies

Thanks for reading again

Liam

Electricalplug (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, the verifiability policy is not jut some policy that should be followed, unless no other policies are broken. It is an integral part of the first of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. You say that  "both Ian and myself both proved that policy to not apply to clear skies."  You have done no such thing.  Policy applies to all articles; there are no exemptions.  Furthermore, the fact that the creator of the movie is participating, does in no way "blow the Verifiability issue right out of the water."  In fact it makes it more  problematic because he has an enormous conflict of interest.  I strongly suggest that you examine closely the links that I have included in this reply.  -Seidenstud (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sorry not sure how you post in the discussion, and I am not commenting on whether to delete or not, as I am personally involved in the project as I provided the voice for Charlie Fodder, but I cannot see anywhere in here where Ian (the creator of Clear Skies) has actually commented on here one way or the other, in fact all of us involved in the project have taken care NOT to post on places like this to "big ourselves up". 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Charlie Fodder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Fodder (talk • contribs)  21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The point i was trying to make, and it's my fault that i didn't get that across, sorry about that, is that the wiki artical in question must be "published by reliable sources". Surely most reliable source to create said wiki page is the author and creator himself? I wasn't infering that by posting in this discussion Ian has "blown the Verifiability issue right out of the water", just the fact that the page was created by the creator. The fact that still remains however is that there are "reliable, non trivial" articals that praise Clear Skies in the conception and making of such a great movie Electricalplug (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if there is some sort of misunderstanding here, but I am not Ian Chisholm. I simply saw fit to create an article about it after the movie exploded in popularity as much as it did, given that the movie was of such high quality compared to most machinima and that within a couple of days of its release everyone in EVE (and many outside of EVE) was talking about it. I don't know how the idea came about that I am Ian Chisholm, but I certainly am not (and to be honest, it wouldn't exactly be appropriate for him to create a wikipedia article about his own movie so that probably isn't the best argument to make anyway.) Uniqueuponhim (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have also just re-read the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and have come across a key section that is going to bring one of my main arguements of keeping this page back into play, this being the "Notability fallacies". This number is big or not big enough, ok, on one forum alone, there 1145 replies, 92047 views, and from only 3(because these were the only ones to display the amount of downloads) out of the total of 12 mirrors that you can download from that are listed in the post, there are 26431 downloads in a community of roughly 28,255(average uniques hits per month of "www.eve-online.com" from the US) with around only 8,028(average uniques hits per month of "http://myeve.eve-online.com" from the US) of those going to the section of the site that contains the forums. Therefore, this is very notable and a strong arguement to keep this page.

Info can be found at:

http://www.quantcast.com/myeve.eve-online.com

http://www.quantcast.com/www.eve-online.com

I would go on to say "that assuming that this download trend of an average of 8810 downloads per mirror for the 3 mirrors that listed the amount of downloads, one could assume then that the estimated total downloads for this film thus far is 8810x12 = 105720 Downloads in total", but i'm now sure that this is inline with wikipedia policy as it is purely hypothetical (bonus points for the big words lol =P) and will delete this segment if needed as i am still only getting to know all of the rules and regulations that makes wikipedia such a great and reliable source of information.

Also, since Drat posted yesterday the numbers on googling '"clear skies" machinima': ""clear skies" machinima gets 633 hits, with 154 unique"

The number of hits has gone up to 2,620, thats a 313.9% increase in just one day, very notable (math -> [[2,620-633]/633]x100).Sorry, don't know how to get the amount of unique hits, is someone could put up the numbers that'd be great.

Electricalplug (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm not sure that I understand your last point 100%, but it seems that you may have understood the section in the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" essay.  The "notability fallacy" refers to the argument of numbers (forum views/comments, downloads, etc.) as an invalid argument (see: Fallacy for further explanation).  Unfortunately, the fact remains that you have yet to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Out of the links provided earlier, only one of them comes close to being reliable.  However, upon closer inspection the Massively site is published by Weblogs, Inc. which boasts on its homepage that "we don't tell our bloggers what to write."  That hardly seems consistent with policy that explains reliability as having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -Seidenstud (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it does not matter what "arguments" are presented: this is one of the clearest instances ever where the Wikicabal will take the decision, not the Wikiusers. The facts that the subject of the article is relatively new, that the medium is radically different from "mainstream", that the subject of the film and its setting (an MMORPG; set in a science-fictional milieu) are esoteric bordering on fancruftish, and that there is no deep background to any of these, means that critical review is naturally going to be sparce, and that notability will be a variable constant accoridng to, for example, location (say London/Rejkavik versus "'in the deserts of Sudan or the gardens of Japan'"). In a year's time, we will know whether or not this is Wiki-worthy. Therefore, being bold, and breaching all process, I suggest we "delete and salt" for 1 year (i.e. no revival), but that this version be archived in a safe place. In 12 months, the archived version can be recreated and up-dated, and a further AfD held to decide whether or not the effort was worth it. But, folks, my thoughts don't matter :: only the Cabal will decide. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and frankly my jaw is dropping at suggestions as vociferous as the nuclear option of "salt for one year" (!), which is a pretty extreme course of action reserved for spam, pagemove vandalism or persistently recreated junk, none of which this is. Anyway, WP:V is POLICY, yes,  the bedrock of Wikipedia.  But WP:V is not an arbitrary, mathematical measure or binary yes/no equation to answer "should this article exist"?  The intent of WP:V is to establish and verify that our articles are factual and accurate, and not sourced with error and misinformation.  It is not a rule for the sake of rules, it is a rule to establish quality control.  Now, is there anyone here who seriously doubts the existence or factuality of what we have written, given the sources offered?  Are people asserting this could be a hoax or something two guys made up in class one day?  Ford MF (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.