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. This is original research, pure and simple. Any article citing only a silly 'news' site with three exclamation marks in its title deserves to be burned. (Incidentally, there were no grounds for relisting this, the call of an admin closer is to find either a consensus or no consensus, unless the debate is so sparse neither is possible. There was plenty of material to call whether there was a consensus or not). If this is a valid topic then I would encourage a good, scientific rewrite, but here is not where to begin. -Splash - tk 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-eye syndrome

[edit]

Seems mostly as ariginal research, the only reference is to a "Aint it cool news"_→AzaToth 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. The article itself describes something that's more of a bug, but I want to give it a chance myself. Let's wait until we kill it. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a neologism that hasn't caught on yet and without a solid attributable definition. The only point of reliable reference (for this definition) is Ain't It Cool News, and everything related I found seems to just be a rehashing of the Polar Express statement on blogs/forums. --Wafulz 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as non-notable neologism. If more sources (particular those that are reliable) explain the term, I'll flip flop.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Sr13 (T|C) 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it is a potentially valid topic, it is quite interesting (yes, I know), and it is referenced, although the far from infallible search engine test doesn't seem to establish notability. And to think that the possibly scientific dead-eye syndrome is an unsuitable topic whereas donkey punch supposedly is a worthy topic here...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-Seems like a notable article. It needs a reliable source though. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO Although Dead-eye syndrome has 60,100 google hits, "Dead-eye syndrome" only has 25 unique hits. The article is 7 months old and has not really progressed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. The "syndrome" it attempts to describe is indeed notable -- however, it's already covered by the well-established concept of the "uncanny valley". -- Docether 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or just maybe merge to uncanny valley. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I found the article interesting, but without reliable sources the article is useless. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as is this is deletion fodder, but I think the topic is valid. Nihiltres 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with uncanny valley. ~Inkington 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is referenced (not great but is) and is a fact it seems (I mean I got dead-eye syndrome when I watched Polar Express but then I fell asleep and I felt a lot better) - but seriously folks this article is/could become a worthwhile stub.--VS ^talk 12:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the very fact that someone like Zemeckis, a major film director, acknowledges the fact that animators and directors are concerned with this issue justifies it being included as a definition within Wikipedia. Furthermore, uncanny valley is an issue concerning robotics, not film animation, which is what dead-eye syndrome is concerned with.--TallulahBelle 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alan.ca 02:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks to me like a neologism. semper fictilis 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with uncanny valley]. This is a real problem, one of many, obvious in computer generated actors. But one reference about one Holywood figure's comment is not enough to justify a separate article at this time. When it is better attested through multiple independent reliable references the article can be recreated. Edison 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With source would be a reasonable article --St.daniel 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources would be good, but the topic is valid and notable enough. Davewild 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uncanny valley is too wierd a term and too specific a theory to adequately cover the highly encyclopedic topic of failures of computer generated actors to be convincing. This article covered only one facet of it. I hope someone in the field will create a good article on the topic, since studios are spending millions trying to achieve convincing rendering of living persons, for such purposes of adding a scene with an ensemble member who has passed away (like Tony Soprano's mother in the Soprano's), making a fantasy creature like Gollum based on motion capture, adding a deceased actor to a commercial or movie, or having a flashback scene showing a youthful moment in a film with an aged actor. There are other problem like stiffness and robotic movement, all of which would be welcome in one new article. Edison 20:59, 15 April 2007 (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.