Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life: Uplink (film)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Half-Life (series)#Cultural impact. Apparently the salient points have been merged therewith. Sandstein 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life: Uplink (film)

I do not believe the film meets the guidelines of WP:MOVIE. Specifically, the film was not widely distributed, nor have I been able to find full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, I have found no evidence to suggest it is historically notable, nor have I found evidence that it has received any major awards, I have no found no evidence to show it has been selected for preservation in a national archive (in fact, it now appears to be illegal to post this film on the Net, as Sierra and Valve failed to approve its release), nor does it seem to be taught as part of an education course at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. On a more basic level, I have not found "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on this film, with the possible exception of [1]. However, because this review is from a fan-site, I personally believe it is not reliable. Thank you for reading. OpenSeven (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5-minute unofficial online video, which according to the article was immediately withdrawn as a blatant copyright violation and nobody liked it anyway. Fails both web and movie guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. OpenSeven (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for films, no real sources. ~~And trout the creator for redundantly adding "(film)" to the end.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In defence of the creator for "And trout the creator for redundantly adding "(film)" to the end.", there was an article on Wikipedia for a long time before it was deleted a number of months ago called 'Half Life: Uplink'. 'Half Life: Uplink' is a demo of Half Life. OpenSeven (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Excuse me Ten Pound Hammer, before you go "trouting" me (a comment I take insult to), you should check your facts. I added the (film) tag because there was another article already call Half-Life Uplink that no longer exists. It was not redundant at the time I created the article. ~~Check your facts, you arrogant little prick.~~--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about that, but please, try to remain civil even if you take offense to someone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Word of advice: Don't ask someone to be civil right after you rudely insulted them. As for my statements, I have retracted them.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant my comment in jest. Sorry if I offended anyone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though his Trout might have been meant as a soft chide, your explanation was sufficient. Your additional comments are decidedly uncivil. I ask forbearance, specially as the nomonation appears to be a snow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see his insult as "soft chide"; I see it as an insult. If he retracts his statement, I will retract mine. Otherwise, I stand by my statement. I consider it arrogent to insult someone without knowing why someone did something. As for: "specially as your nomonation appears to be a snow", would you elaborate? I don't understand what you are trying say because of typos.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just meant that the nomination for deletion seemed to be very successful, and he was supportive of it, despite the trout... which would all tend to indicate that there was no ill will intended.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When someone refers to a nomination as "snow", they mean they believe that the nomination has no real chance of either passing or failing, depending upon the nomination. In the context of this specific nomination, the editor is stating that he believes this nomination will definetly pass. Please refer to WP:SNOW for more details. Hope that clears things up. OpenSeven (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but mention in Half-Life (video game): I actually agree that this subject is too small for its own article. I propose this article be deleted and a small mention of this failed film be added to the main Half-Life article.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~Might indeed be worth a mention in the Half-Life article, thanks for the suggestion. OpenSeven (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Done, I have added a mention of the film at Half-Life (video game). OpenSeven (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Thanks. With that, I hold no objections to this RfD.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set Redirect ~~delete~~ ~~as failing notability.~~ as has suggested/been done by nom. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Source from CNET, Source from GameSpy, run by IGN, run by News Corporation, although the Planet Half-Life one is really bad for their standards, they're normally a lot better. There's certainly no need for a individual article. In any case, this sort of material would be helpful for the Half-Life (series) article when I (or anyone else if they get to it quicker than I do) get around to cleaning that article up and including information on the series' development, impact, cultural influence, etc. This seems to be a reasonable example of the last of those, so merge it to Half-Life (series), even if it is only a redirect with no content moved over, pending cleanup of the series article. I won't lose any sleep if it is deleted though. -- Sabre (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Thats a good idea.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Added "Cultural impact" section to Half-Life (series), and added information about the film to it. OpenSeven (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Half-Life (series)#Cultural impact Since I believe I have added all of the information about this film relevant to a section of an article dealing with the cultural impact of Half-Life in general, I would like to propose that Half-Life: Uplink (film) is re-directed to Half-Life (series)#Cultural impact. OpenSeven (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now TransWikied the article to CombineOverWiki, a Wiki devoted to the Half-Life Universe-[2], just in case anyone was curious to know. OpenSeven (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.