Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, which defaults to keep. Joyous! | Talk 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

 * Strong delete. Article creator is creating multiple sequel articles with no references whatsoever &mdash; examples are Signs 2, Blair Witch 3: The Prequel, Speed 3 (being speedied), and I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer. Please also see Fan1967's statement in Articles for deletion/Signs 2 regarding possible malicious motive behind same.  Last Summer "sequel" kept getting AfD notice removal from anonymous users editing behind AOL proxy servers (see here and here), so that's a possibility with this one &mdash; your vigilance would be appreciated. &mdash; Mike &bull;  01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know the person who wrote this "malicious" entry also wrote for Variety.  User:WCityMike I don't expect an apology to this "malicious" anon, for being proven completly, 100% wrong, because it is an unwritten rule on the internet never, ever admit you are wrong--even when it is so blatant as in this case.   Travb (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did the user cite this? No.  Therefore, was it unreferenced when created?  Yes.  Did the other articles nominated have any supporting evidence either?  No.  Did the user repeatedly remove AfD notices from the articles he or she was working on until an admin blocked them?  Yes.  In my opinion, no apology necessary for using the term "possible malicious motive," especially given Fan1967's research.   And considering I've been around since August 2004 and have only recently begun working in AfD, I suspect your look at my contributions was done with a rather selective eye. &mdash; Mike &bull; 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did this anon write the Variety article or the movie web article www.movieweb.com? E-mail me and I will have you send me tickets when the movie comes out.  Typically you ignore my central argument, about the Variety article, did the anon write this Variety article too.    How many articles will others have to find before you admit that this movie will come out, 6, 12, 20, 100?  Answer: No matter how much evidence anyone provides, you will stick by your central argument that this article should be deleted.   Travb (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, cool down, Travb. There is no need to continue. Mike, if you are as veteran in Wikipedia as you mention, you will know when not to reply is better than doing so. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize publicly to User:WCityMike I was wrong. I did not know that User:WCityMike has been an editor since August 2004. I am sure he has added a lot of actual content to Wikipedia, being an editor since August 2004.  Again, my apologizes.  I was completely 100% wrong.Travb (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your apology, sir, and thank you for it. &mdash; Mike &bull; 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Reference cited IMDB article. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This one isn't a hoax, it's just so crystal-ballish as to be unfit for an article. They don't have a firm cast yet, no shooting schedule, and there's no guarantee the movie will be made at all (IMDB is really, really bad about listing planned movies that never get made). Fan1967 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a crystal ball, and the article can be resubmitted when and if a movie is actually made.  Judging from history, I'm guessing this will happen in any case?  Tychocat 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Fan1967. ---Charles 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Too crystal ballish, if the movie does get created, feel free to recreate the article —M e ts501 talk 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Burninate it. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this isone of the few that's actually legitimate at this point. Among other places, it has been confirmed in Variety that this is happening and that Rob Lowe will star.  "Crystal ballism" isn't for verified future events, and this is verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. When it happens, the article can be re-created. Until then, leave it in Variety. Kafziel 11:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - badlydrawnjeff may have a point but how many of these get cancelled after being announced ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and unless Rob Lowe is planning to do the movie solo, they've got a lot of casting to do before they can even begin filming. Still a crystal ball. Fan1967 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT regarding "crystal ballism" as it's put. Crystal ballism is for non-verified information, and Variety is most certainly a reliable source. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the article could stay as stub until more information about it is known. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states the event can be included if the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred and Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As far as it seems, the event is going to happen (and by now it should already be happening, which is my base for keeping). Also, note that If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented indicating events that have yet to begin can be included in Wikipedia, and the article is documented with an IMDB entry. -- ReyBrujo 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a well documented cast (like more than one person)? Is there a well documented shooting schedule? Without those things, I think there are serious problems with almost certain. Fan1967 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For the matter of including the movie in Wikipedia, I base myself in one of the WP:NOT guidelines: supposing the movie had already been released, would it be a fair article? From what I know, it is the sequel of a notable movie (that has its own article at Wikipedia). We have the producers, director, screenwriter, main actor, distributor and estimated date of both shooting begin and display. Knowing Rob Lowe is starring it (just to point my neutrality, I have never heard about him until this AFD), and knowing that in out of 26 movies he acted (according to his article), 23 have articles, I believe this article could exist as a stub. That behaviour is common in the cvg environment in Wikipedia, like Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game). -- ReyBrujo 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem lies in your very first sentence. "Supposing the movie had already been released".  It hasn't, and as cited a few times above, Wikipedia has very clear guidelines regarding including speculative articles. &mdash;  Mike  &bull;  16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That sentence comes directly from the policy: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. -- ReyBrujo 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it also has to be "almost certain to take place". Until a film reaches theaters, that's almost an impossible criterion to meet. IMDB is very unreliable for things like that (Boondock Saints 2 comes to mind), and whether an article in Vogue constitutes "well-documented" speculation is certainly debatable. I'm not trying to change your vote (although, after this lengthy of a discussion, I don't think I'd call it a "weak" keep), just offering info. Kafziel 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody has disputed the notability, if the movie existed. The question is whether there is enough evidence it actually will. And the next time somebody tries to claim Variety as a source, it would be nice if they could actually post a link to Variety instead of a rumor-mill site that says "Variety reports that". I find it puzzling I can't find any reference to the story at variety.com itself. Fan1967 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mustn't have looked hard, as it's the #1 result when you search "Rob Lowe" on the site. It's being picked up elsewhere   regardless, so I don't understand your protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I can change it (as I did many times in the past) if it is probed this movie is a hoax (in example, the Variety source from which all these media sites did not exist) or there wasn't at least a confirmed actor, the director and distributor (like in X-Men 4). Note that these are my own thoughts based on the policy, and why I support this movie but not X-Men 4. The Variety article exists and so far there are that minimun of elements _for me_ (including being the sequel of a movie that is considered notable in Wikipedia). If tomorrow this Lowe denies he will be starring the movie, I would change it to Weak Delete because it is just a step behind becoming Wikipedia worthy. The Weak qualifier in this case is not because I am unsure, but instead because, right now, it has the minimun elements for notability I require. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Ugh voliates WP:NOT to the nth degree. Besides there is nothing on the IMDB page at all. Whispering 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What part does it violate? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also ...or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable... Having one actor on the IMDB page is not notable enough IMHO. Whispering 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, now read the crystal ball stuff closer. If things are verifiable - and this is - it can be kept.  Is the event notable?  Absolutely, it's a sequel to a major motion picture, and it stars Rob Lowe.  Seems like it doesn't violate either of your reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to badger everyone that votes to delete this? Kind of poor form, isn't it? Kafziel 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion. If pointing out faulty logic is badgering, then perhaps I will be.  But when people cite policy as a reason for deletion, and cite it incorrectly, should they not be pointed out?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they were clearly, obviously wrong, sure. But since your interpretation of that provision is only shared by about half of this page... well, it's up to you, I guess, but it just seems a little heavy-handed to me. Kafziel 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind being heavy handed. And it is kinda clearly wrong, the crystal-ballism section isn't exactly ambiguous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be based on facts. --JJay 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete Aggressive mass crystalballism. I don't take to IMDB pages that are pre-production, which in IMDB terms are 'rumors'. IMDB != notable, as IMDB lists everything that appears in TV or movies, in the smallest degree. Ahh, vote change.  Like the Variety link. Kevin_b_er 08:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Crystal ballism is for issues that cannot be verified. Variety, a well respected entertainment publication, verifies this quite clearly.  How does this qualify as "mass crystalballism?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussing every Delete vote does nothing, and may annoy some. You had had your opportunity of establishing why it should be kept in your vote, there is no need to discuss every vote, especially if they are not Weak votes. -- ReyBrujo 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We disagree. Certainly, if people are annoyed by someone pointing out their faulty citing of policy, people could be annoyed by faulty citing of policy in a deletion discussion, too. Discussing every delete vote (which, BTW, I have not done) does plenty - it notifies the closing party that there is a problem with the rationale given.  AfD, being a discussion, almost requires it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The one who will close will read all the votes and determine which ones are correct. You have already explained why it should be kept. Letting an "I disagree" in most Delete votes (better?) does not add to the discussion. I assume good faith and think someone who votes have read all the previous votes and determined which one was correct (if any), and supported that. AFD is a discussion, yes, but in a discussion with friends you don't just shake your head and say "You are wrong." after hearing every opinion. Once you give all the arguments you can think of, it is better to sit down, take a breath, and watch the development of the discussion. Objecting everything only happens in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney :-) -- ReyBrujo 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, we disagree. Call me Phoenix, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote/opinion. Keep in mind this is the version I saw, and there was a string of articles that were all out of place sequels created by the same user.  What would your first reaction be?  Kevin_b_er 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I wish people would start writing articles on wikipedia instead of attempting to delete everyone else's. Travb (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be real, as it is sourced. SushiGeek 03:23, 13 June 2006 (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.