Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eon8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Xuanwu (talk | contribs)
1,283 edits
No edit summary
DGJM (talk | contribs)
1,637 edits
Line 132: Line 132:
'''Comment/Wait''' - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this ''hoax'' is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes here]. --[[User:Jon Ace|Jon Ace]] 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment/Wait''' - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this ''hoax'' is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes here]. --[[User:Jon Ace|Jon Ace]] 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. [[User:Xuanwu|Xuanwu]] 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. [[User:Xuanwu|Xuanwu]] 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', this is pretty useless. Protect re-creation until July 1st, when we can see if anything came of the site. It's just a giant rumour mill as is. --[[User:DGJM|Doug]] <FONT SIZE="1">([[User talk:DGJM|talk]])</FONT> 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:54, 30 June 2006

Eon8

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Delete:Some website thats only claim to notability is the fact that no one knows what it is for. Sounds like a brilliant marketing tactic to me. Since the only sources are the pure speculation of blogs and alike this site itself clearly fails WP:WEB.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possible attempt at hijacking Wikipedia for viral marketing purposes. This is the forth time this page has been recreated (I nominated for a speedy delete the first time I noticed it). This time by User:Angelinacarmen whose account I suspect to be a sock puppet. Unless "eon8" hits the mainstream press like I Love Bees a few years ago, I think it might be wise to place a page creation block on eon8 and eon8.com.

  • Fails WP:WEB.
  • Google hits ("eon8"): 1,750
  • Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,323,027.

--  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Hooray!</sarcasm> YTMND fad in progress: http://eon8theinvestigation.ytmnd.com/ Expect more sock puppets on their way. --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, non-notable webpage. However, may change vote depending on what happens on July 1st, be it cyberterrorism or the release of a new video game product. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being sarcastic :D )--TBCTaLk?!? 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As this site has not yet been confirmed to be any kind of advertising I belive this page should remain alive. Even if it is confirmed to be an advertisement it is not going to further promotion to the bussiness, and becuase it has become something of a phonomenon in terms of peeking peoples interest I believe the EON8 page should remain as a source of information of this phonomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.118.171 (talk • contribs)
User has only 3 edits, either to the article or this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable webpage, horrible marketing ploy. I support protecting it from re-creation if it gets deleted, especially if July 1 comes and goes and nothing happens. In fact, if July 1 comes and goes without anything happened, I'd support speedy deletion per A1, since it will have turned out to be patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable, it's a big deal on the internet, there's a lot of information on it, and most importantly, we're about to find out what it is in 23 hours. TheDavesr 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB miserably. Notability will be created in the mind of some pseudo-cult that, for whatever reasons, gives the website attention when it merits none, but unless the media covers it thoroughly, then it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. GassyGuy 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit is to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it turns out to be nothing (which will be before the AFD is scheduled to close). --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the countdown ends or more information is shed on this. It seems that this thing is getting more and more attention, thanks to the help of the YTMND made about it. And, since there's no real way of knowing what this thing is until this countdown ends, waiting seems to be the logical choice.--GenericnameI 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Netsnipe 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the timer reaches zero, and we can fully understand the purpose of the website. If it turns out to be something significant, deleting it would be a bad move.Will 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By this "logic" we need a page for every newborn baby, since they may go on to do something significant. Here's an idea: Significance first, article later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- GWO
  • Keep as WillFirminger --Ood 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, so it's a mysterious website. Whoopee. The idea that we should wait until the countdown reaches zero is ridiculous; as has been noted before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; something needs to be worthwhile when the article is written, not in the future. If this is so significant and exciting, let's see it get some media coverage or huge Slashdot buzz or something that signifies that people really give a damn -- otherwise, it's just another website. -- Captain Disdain 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forget my first comment(i removed), delete per Captain Disdain. --andrew 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Until the timer reaches zero. Even if it is a viral markeing site, the Wikipedia page should be about the site itself, not the product (in the same way that ilovebees is about the site, not Halo 2 itself)

Delete (or speedy), block recreation. Fails WP:WEB (note: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria), also fancruft, and article is largely nonsense, original research not encylopedic and not verifiable. If it becomes part of a marketing campaign then it can go into an article about the product, if enough encylopedic content can be found. akaDruid 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We don't know whether this is viral marketing or not. Until it is confirmed to be so, which will likely be at the end of the timer, it should remain. It should also be taken off if nothing happens after the timer ends, obviously. Additionally, this has become a big and noticable thing on internet blogs and various internet news sources.

Comment: I see no real reason why any site would be this deliberately obscure unless it was to create hype. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial observer, but with no solid information yet as to what Eon8 is, anything written in this article is mere speculation and conjecture that cannot be independently verified by anyone. Wikipedia cannot be an impartial observer if it lets itself get entangled in the hype -- we need to stay above the fray long as possible until the hype settles rather than be part of it. --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we find out more about this site. MisterCheese 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Much is unknown about this mysterious site. If the theory about a marketing scheme for a console is true then move parts of this article to the console's article. I'm personally intrigued about this, if it turns out to be nothing then Delete. Bfscr 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's just create articles about every site on the Internet, just incase they might become the next Google. *sarcasm* It's just a hoax. If it's something important, than go ahead and re-create it. andrew 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know if it is something important or just a hoax. That's why we need to wait. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown ends. It's less than 12 hours away and considering there -are- people interested, maintaining what little info there is would be fitting in the stance of Wikipedia. Plus, when the counter is over and we know what will happen/happened, we can delete it or keep it as needed. (no sig to put sorry =/)

Wait until July 1st. If it turns out to be viral advertising, I would suggest a merge of all relevant information into viral marketing, provided that eon8 loses its notability following the conclusion of the countdown. Jryder 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or at least for now. This thing did generate a lot of buzz. Whatever it is, I'm buying one. At least wait till the timer ends to decide what'll happen to this page. --Nintendorulez talk 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the time is up, then we can see if it is definately a hoax or not, so we can delete, merge, or keep. Until then, we shouldn't delete it. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep and rewrite. ILB won a place as a settled phenomenon, this should, too. Keep the reference as a service to the myriad people who just want a one stop, no-hype confirmation that the page is generally regarded as real but not true, but make it clear that wikipedia is not for speculation. Update again after it's all said and done. 18:01, 30 June (UTC)
  • Wait as per above.-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect for the 10 hours remaining: Once there are some more "solid" facts on the subject, IE: What it means, sources that quote it, topics on the media, and a stance of notability, Rewrite entirely to meet WP guidelines. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be somthing important for all we know...and wikipedia is the only place i could find that had a colaboration of all the interent communites information on this strange site...theres more to this than viral marketing i feel
I really don't think all this waiting business is the way to do things. We don't customarily keep things because they might turn out to be significant; in fact, we pretty much do the exact opposite! As I said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Restoring the article if it turns out to be significant is a piece of cake. Ain't no thing. Right now, it's just a thing on the web, and not even a thing that everyone's talking about -- sure, it gets some blog action, but there's a reason why "stuff some guys said on their blogs" is not generally accepted as a Wikipedia source. It may turn out to be significant, but it may not. Point is, we don't know, which pretty much underlines the fact that it is not yet significant. The fact that a lot of us are clearly intrigued by it speaks well of these guys' ability to get people interested, but that doesn't make this site encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no special reason to wait until the counter expires. If it's viral marketing, then Wikipedia is not a billboard for it. If it's an inside joke propagated by someone with nothing better to do, then it isn't encyclopedic. If it's a real, honest web site, then the conclusions reached by the article are still original research. I don't see any reason to keep this around. --Elkman 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see a reason not to. I think it's really interesting, and as it continues developing the Wiki article should be there to help log it. If it turns out to be nothing, then I still don't suggest deletion, but maybe merging it with an article on hoaxes or something like that. It's been around for nearly 80 days now, and I think that should give it some sort of merit. -- Phallicmic 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Because we do not yet know what Eon8 is, it may be something of significance. And even if it is viral advertising, should it not have a page? If Ilovebees has a page, then why not Eon8? -- 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although this site is probably some sort of viral marketing tactic, it is good that Wikipedia has it marked as it has become a sort-of internet meme amongst forums and other communities. -- Necromancer 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's only got 8 hours left. At least let's see what happens.--Mobius Soul 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why the heck is this even considered for deletion? You have got to be kidding me, such other sites with similar characteristics such as ilovebees.com as mentioned above has a wiki page, why not this? --User:Tooooon 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Christ on a pogo stick. Another flurry of redlinked commenters. Is this catching or something? Delete as what I suspect is going to be a marketing ploy of some sort... it smells like one. (Considering that AfDs run five days, we'll know whether it's worth it or not anyhow.) Tony Fox (speak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is how viral marketing happens. cacophony 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This could be something big, and you know-nothings will be cowering away once it happens. I can't believe some of you think typing "NN, D" is actually hip and cool. Go find some girl (or boy) friends, you nerds. Bubby the Tour G 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, the above comment betrays a gross ignorance of how Wikipedia actually works. No one's going to be cowering away once -- well, if -- it happens, because this is not a personal thing or a guessing contest or a puzzle. It just isn't about trying to predict whether this turns out to be something important. At all. -- Captain Disdain 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is a source for information, so why purge itself of its information on a topic that has little information available?
  • Keep for now, and you can't accuse me of redlinked profile or lack of edits or any of those chestnuts. There are three distinct possibilities here. Possibility one: It is viral marketing, in which case it is probably notable. Possibility two: It is an elaborate hoax, which just might make it notable if enough sources pick up on it when the countdown hits 0. Possibility three: It's actually a conspiracy, which is highly unlikely, but obviously notable. We'll have more information when this thing hits 0. Crystallina 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Wait - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this hoax is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes here. --Jon Ace 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. Xuanwu 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is pretty useless. Protect re-creation until July 1st, when we can see if anything came of the site. It's just a giant rumour mill as is. --Doug (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8&oldid=61436676"