Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Eon8

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.

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

The result of the debate was delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Improperly closed, restoring. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8

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)

• • • Keep*** This was a test for people's minds, it should be stated on the page, and the last line should be finished.

Delete: Possible attempt at hijacking Wikipedia for viral marketing purposes. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=eon8 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)

<sarcasm>Hooray!</sarcasm> YTMND fad in progress: eon8theinvestigation.ytmnd.com/ Expect more sock puppets on their way. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.

User has only 3 edits, either to the article or this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • Seriously, go read WP:WEB and then tell me how it meets such criteria of notability. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

• Wait until the countdown ends, at least. I personally know of SO many people on the internet who have asked me what's going on and it's so much easier to link to this page. There's no reason to not leave it up for one more day and see what the impact is after the occurance.--CountCrazy007 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the countdown ends, what to do from there depends on what happens (if anything). --Bky1701 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as par it being useless. --Bky1701 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now lets just wait a day, then we can better decide what to do. --Knife720 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User's only edit is to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Netsnipe 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until July 1 if anything happens. Douglasr007 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until July 1. It doesn't hurt anything, and it may end up changing the situation.-Mance 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. website promo. jni 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete painfully non-notable. fails WP:anything --Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it is something non-notable, it has already had a significant amount of fame 66.188.253.213 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be at least an attempt at another I Love Bees. It doesn't hurt to be here, and its talk page can serve to allow discussion. Parcelbrat 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It's growing prominence and popularity on the Internet, but I dunno... —THIS IS MESSEDFile:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 06:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable in some circles. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion of non-notable website. OverlordQ 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that blatant self-promotion? It's written NPOV... Redwolf24 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it's intriguing, all the info (what little there was) was congruent to its sources, and until July 1 (or June 30) we won't know anything about it's true validity as a website counting down an actual :thing:. 71.83.255.141 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How can you say this doesn't merit an entry while ilovebees does? This has become a very notable website in the past few days and should stay. --Phoenix Hacker 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, ilovebees has recieved a considerable amount of media attention, while the above website hasn't--TBCTaLk?!? 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least until the end of the countdown. Has gained plenty of popularity recently - just check the referrers list they have up. I've seen it talked about quite a few places, as well, and we won't know what it is until the countdown is up. --Guess Who 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if it wasn't notable before, it is now.... 24.9.10.235 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Short lived fad. If it sticks around more than a month, might be worth an article. -- GWO
• Keep - Not only will something happen soon, there's a bit of fame to it already on the internet. There's no need to have another "oops, we almost deleted something that was so popular it was put into a movie" debacle like what happened with Juggernaut Bitch. Scumbag 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the countdown's over, I'm curious to see exactly what this site is for.
• Wait - at least until the countdown ends, this is getting mentions on many forums, and if something worthwhile gravitates from this, then keep the article. --Zimbabweed 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• Delete we don't need a Wiki article to publicize the hoax more. The whole thing is pure speculation/crystall ballism. It's just another Ytmnd fad made by the members.--Andeh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all advertising. — Haeleth Talk 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is not a ytmnd fad this was made before the ytmnd was there.
• Keep Wait - I agree with others: we should wait until July 1st. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Disdain. I am somehow reminded of the old joke, ""How do you keep a (FITB) in suspense?" but I am also reminded that humor and irony often do not transfer in text. Tychocat 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Keep - Useful, interesting. Ouuplas 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove YTMND references to keep this as a legitimate article. --Frogfusious 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. We have an Haunted Apiary article for precedent if it is viral marketing. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown hits zero. It's most likely nothing, but nevertheless it is pertinent for the time being considering all the hubbub and ruckus concerning it. Once we see that it's most likely just some silly marketing campaign, we can run this thing again and see the page get axed. eszett^talk 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4. --DarkAudit 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator of this AfD is the 3rd admin who speedied this. In other words, let's just give this article its 5 days of discussion. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would say that we don't wait. It's been deleted twice already, and fails to meet notability standards. If no one knows what it's for, how can it be notable? And I don't buy the 'it's notable because no one knows what it's for' argument. --DarkAudit 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown is past zero to decide what to do. Jdh 24 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment may I just point out that AFDs last five days so this is going to be here until the counter reaches zero regardless of whether people suggest keep or delete. Ydam 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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 ^talk_contribs 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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

• Wait until time is up, then we could take action against it. Until then, I say we just let it be. The pointer outer 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait - I agree with The pointer outer. Let's hold off until this countdown ends and see if there's any substance to the site or if it's just a hoax. Torinir 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait or at least take much of the information into the article on viral marketing, it's a stellar example of viral marketing execution. If it turns out to be for the new Bond film, it should be a section in the Casino Royale article. 71.200.83.199 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Comment Phallicmic has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 71.96.194.29. Jll 22:01, 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)
• Keep - It's only got 8 hours left. At least let's see what happens.--Mobius Soul 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

Comment Tooooon has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 86.20.242.197. Jll 21:55, 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)
• Delete - This is how viral marketing happens. cacophony 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • You're the ignorant one, buddy. This article is becoming very popular... and even if nothing happens, it still deserves a spot here. I am not ignorant as to how Wikipedia works... k? 65.34.136.176 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

• • Delete, unless for some reason it is picked up by media. Crystallina 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Possibility one: fails for advertising. Possibility two: fails WP:HOAX. Possibility three: fails WP:NPOV. All three mean delete. --DarkAudit 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, this article should remian on wiki. --Street Scholar 20:40, 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. --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. 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. --Doug (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oops, didn't see that this AfD would run past July 1st. I'll keep my opinion as Delete, unless something majorly useful is revealed tommorrow.--Doug (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can afford to wait until it becomes notable before we have an article about it. --William Pietri 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above/nom (way up there). If anything that is purported to happen, happens, deletion review can undelete the article. Zos 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until proven either true or a hoax. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait per the many reasons cited above. --Rikoshi 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - SOMETHING will happen. Wikipedia should not deny the existence of this page. If eon8 turns out to be a hoax, you should STILL keep the page for the sake of wikipedia remaining the world's foremost archive of all relatively interesting stuff. Famous or not (and eon8 is becoming a fad), I want to know what's going on, and wikipedia was the first place I found that provided some explanation of the site. Since it's useful to me, keep it around, why not? 71.224.37.10 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this Strong Keep Ilrosewood 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Suspect Sockpuppet - Above User Ilrosewood has only ever edited in relation to this afd Bwithh 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for two reasons. There is clearly a huge popularity with its number of edits, and there is sufficient information to provide from the website. The speculation simply needs to be removed. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hadn't heard of it before seeing the article.--SarekOfVulcan 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to all the "Wait" voters: Our AfD policy, which makes most AfDs stay open one week, means this AfD will still be running when the clock reaches zero. Don't get too upset, and if it turns out to be notable, people will change their votes. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But we can't change our votes when we're all dead! </hardyharhar> - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I won't hold my breath. - Motor (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Wait - Wikipedia is about the only thing out there that has any information on this whole buisness. It may not have a huge traffic rating, but then again, it's realitivly new and has been generating quite a bit of buzz. If it turns out to be a lame advertising ploy, then it can just redirect to the company. But for now, it should stay. --Tiler 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is not enough information on/from the site even to warrant notability. It is clearly viral marketing, and has will be even less appropriate here when it starts selling a product in a few days. Seidenstud 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as crystal ballism, unless something totally cool happens. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just keep it. 5 and a half hours remain. if something noteable does happen you will have to rewrite the article 5 hours after it's deleted
• Delete, not notable and probably viral marketing. Zantolak 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The website exists and it deserves a place in this encyclopdia. It is not a marketting ploy from what I can see especially considering there is no specific details or contact details or anything.

• Comment, user has two edits, including the one above. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think that this is significant enough of an internet event to warrent a spot on this "encyclopedia."--Esuriat Corinths 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User has six edits to articles. - Motor (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this comment meant as a means of invalidating my vote just because I don't feel inclined to edit Wikipedia very often? I assure you that though I haven't done many edits, it's primarily because I have had very little time to do so since I created this account. As such, turning away an opinion in this manner can be discouraging to people who are aspiring to become prominent editors.--Esuriat Corinths 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. What happens on July 1? Someone gets either fired for getting no publicity, or paid off for running a successful campaign. Who cares? Not me, and neither do the Wikipedia guidelines. It fails WP:NOR and fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep it who knows what will happen?

• Delete per nom, and all the marketing arguments. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. —Stormie 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We don't KNOW if it's viral marketing. Stop voting to delete, until the timer ends. After that, this article will become incredibly useful, or stupidly useless.
• Keep/Wait, This discussion alone proves this site's notablity. Removal prior to July 1, 2006 would not be prudent.
• Keep/Wait, Have some patience. There is less than a day left. When the counter hits zero, then do what you will, but wait until it does. 4-5 more hours ain't gonna kill Wikipedia.
• Keep/Wait, this is definitely notable. Delete if it's viral marketing, but right now this is serious buisness. --YesIAmAnIdiot 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly, non-notable vandalism magnet. Also, it's a YTMND fad, and if Brian Peppers is any indication, YTMNDers will stop at nothing to avert VfD. They have much more spare time than we do. Thunderbunny 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am saying this just on the basis that this article is VERY useful to people, especially today and tommorow, assuming there will be an internet tommorow. Heck, I went to wikipedia to look this up. It is an event that there is so little information on that everyone wants to try to find out more. Where else to go but here?Sbloemeke
• Keep if we do not know, we should not delete. too early for afd.--Buridan 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Wait, It is clear that there is no concensus on the purpose of the website. This invalidates the argument for deleting as marketing. This is an assumption, and considering the general unpredicability of the internet, an assumption that is not well based. --70.101.178.208 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prove to me that it is not marketing. Show me how it meets any of the required criteria of WP:WEB. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd like to say wait, but in this case it's just a passing fad which is popular because it's been researched enough to make people ask themselves if it's a conspiracy or not (it isn't, you don't see MJ12 making a website and telling everyone when it'll assume control of the world). Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7, Do Not Wait, and Permanently block the IP addresses of the creators of the article for continuing to recreate the article after previous deletions as well as flagrant sockpuppetry attempt to subvert afd discussion. This is pure and relentless and appalling marketing/self-promotion abuse of wikipedia, either for yet another idiotic "enigmatic" web-based art project or for a marketing campaign. The idea of waiting for the countdown to end is absolutely ridiculous and is an invitation for more art self-promotion/viral marketing abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a cog in a marketing machine or a free billboard for "edgy" web artists. If the site does in fact turn out to be notable after the countdown ends, THEN create an article. To do so now is simply to blindly help someone promote themselves for zero encyclopedic reason. It does not matter that we don't know if the website is for commercial marketing, we DO know that is relentlessly and obnoxiously (repeatedly recreating the article and the flagrant sockpuppetry) self-promoting itself on Wikipedia without any evidence of encyclopedic notability or any notability beyond its own promotion. If we wait until July 1, we would merely be bowing to the main goal of the self-promoters, and be prostituting Wikipedia in the process. Delete, and ban the IP addresses of the creators for unacceptable and repeated abuse of Wikipedia. No mercy. Bwithh
  • Comment Self-promotors? Prove it. Noob cannon lol 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response This is a rich comment from User:Noob cannon lol whose only interest prior to this afd discussion has been creating a self-promoting article about their own or their own group's video game mod which was subsequently deleted despite much sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by Noob cannon lol and his friends in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_more_room_in_hell the afd nomination Bwithh 03:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems a bit harsh. QRX 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification Just to clarify, even if the website does turn out to be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, I would STILL strongly recommend as a matter of principle that admins ban the IPs of the creators - at least for a long period of time if not permanently. I don't think this is harsh if the community tries to protect wikipedia from relentless abuse for self-promotion as well as sockpuppetry. Bwithh 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Wait until the counter reaches zero, then we can see wether or not to take it out.
• Keep, Let's wait until the timer reaches zero. If it is something that is not noteable, then get rid of it. dposse 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wait until the timer reaches zero, like most say. This could turn out to be something big. --Akyu 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wait: Wait until the time is up. After we can tell whether to keep, merge or delete. -AndThree

• Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Quoting verbatim from the lead, Eon8.com is a website "with unknown origins and a slowly-developing purpose and function". Sounds like a fancy way of saying non-notable to me. Fails that, nevermind WP:WEB. -Fsotrain09 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible terms delete per WP:WEB and the fact that this is a non-notable phenomenon. Vote-stacking of all the above sockpuppets and blockheads saying 'Let's wait and see' is not a valid exercise as (a) this is not a vote and (b) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it isn't notable, it isn't notable. We don't create speculative articles about things that might be notable one day. Given that the website is now not available, this remnant should also be purged. Wikipedia requires more than self-published sources, and the only alternate available references are an array of forum posts. Only 176 unique Ghits for "Eon 8" (mostly unrelated) and 308 unique Ghits for "eon8" (likewise). Big WP:V problems alone merit deletion. Kill it with fire NOW. SM247^{My Talk} 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• You can do anything at Eon8.com, I mean Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait: Wait until the time is up. If it turns out to be a viral marketing ploy then merge to list of viral marketing ploys. If it's a virus then keep. There is no such thing as a "hijack" of a free encyclopedia for marketing purposes. Other articles exist about other web sites. These articles serve as marketing for said media. - m0nde 1:27 AM July 01, 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to mOnde Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:FREE. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, and that especially includes non-notable marketing and self-promotion efforts. Bwithh 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Some documentation should be available on Wikipedia about current events. You were correct to refer me to policies but I reiterate that this has become an internet event which people have been discussing ad nauseum. I do believe, however, that the page should be rigourously monitored for misuse by those who are disscussing it. m0nde 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait/Keep* At least wait until the counter reaches 0. If something notable and worthy of inclusion happens then, keep it; otherwise delete it. Xgamer4 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I can just see a bunch of fat nerds in a basement sweating profusely at this BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROSTITUTE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!. The website has created buzz. It's notable. People are coming here to "vote" not to stack anything but because they want to weigh their opinion without making an account. Are these people's opinions worth less because they're anonymous? Tokakeke 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of us, myself included, would argue that proposition. If you are only coming here to give an opinion, you are likely not familiar with Wikipedia policies. The above comments reflect this. SM247^{My Talk} 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - Don't straw-man me. I know Wikipedia policies, I feel it doesn't matter in this case due to the fact this site has spread in less than two days to pretty much everywhere. You want to berate someone for policy, look at the guy underneath who just chewed out a new user for being a "sockpuppet" (apparently someone's got a faulty definition). Too lazy to sign in, 67.188.132.146 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep\Delete*: Just keep it until it is over, then trash it. It's probably unimportant. ... ManualSearch 10:06. 30 June 2006

Comment Suspected sockpuppet - ManualSearch has only edited in relation to this afd. Bwithh 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: If only as an excellent example of viral marketing in action? 24 / 48 hours ago Google knew next to nothing about eon8. today i've lost track of the number of forums discussing it in threads that run for page after page after page! and either eon8 are being very tricksy and ramping up the intrigue as the clock ticks away, or their site has gone down under the strain of god knows how many million hits? very, very well done IMO! sepher 88.107.219.208 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Do you see what I mean by how implementing long or permanent bans on the article creators being a good idea? Bwithh

Response: should i infer anything from the indentation of your post immediately below mine? along the lines of sock/meat-puppetry? by way of general comment rather than direct reply, if there are suddenly no end of new / anonymous users offering their opinions here on this, i suspect that that's as a result of the interest generated, and not because they are all in the pockets of theplanet / eon8. that that level of interest has been generated is reason enough to keep the article, i'd have thought? sepher 88.107.219.208 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run by popularity contests. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia not a free billboard for whatever thing people are trying to create buzz for Bwithh 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'm suggesting that the number of hits / searches / threads / posts, here, and elsewhere on the net, are an indication of the widespread interest created. not that Wikipedia should be a "popularity contest" or a "billboard"? i think the "buzz" round the net is obvious. how many daft sites and anims have you seen spoofing it, or analysing it? lots, that's how many! it's an event. keep for now at least? it may be a 9 day wonder? it may just be the biggest thing since dancing hamsters!  ;) sepher 88.107.219.208 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please try to keep personal attacks out of this, as well as needless generalizations. I do not appreciate being called a self-promoter, blockhead, sockpuppet, etc. and neither do the many entrenched Wikipedians who have voted to keep this article. I am reiterating this here so it hopefully does not happen again. Crystallina 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Read this, please. SM247^{My Talk} 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Noone is calling you a sockpuppet. Noone is saying that all the keep votes are sockpuppets. But there is clearly sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on in this discussion. Bwithh 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep/Wait blah blah blah what everyone else said. This page is fun. --Liface 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete changing my vote. What a letdown. --Liface 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: it doesn't meet notability requirements (not yet, anyway), as per WP:WEB. --dsm iv tr 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I definitley think this should stay up. It's a big happening on the internet right now, and therfore needs a page to document it. At the very least, it can stay up as an example of viral marketing.

• Wait until the counter reaches zero. --G0zer 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the page is just a mess of speculation. Per above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alphachimp ^talk 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until the counter reaches zero.Delete; what a gyp. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. This type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be useful for. I've heard of eon8 from three different sources in a matter of hours. Google is 24–48 hours behind, and Britannica obviously won't ever touch this. Where else will I be able to look for a reliable synopsis of this meme, along with thorough details as to what's been discovered? Obviously this is nothing but a viral marketing site, but I can't determine that solely by looking at the site (which is down) or forums (which are segmented and unreliable). If you want to bring the page to Wikipedia's standards, then eliminate the "crystal ball" paragraphs and stick to the core facts about this site and what it has been discovered about it. —tilde 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This website is a crystal ball, as a website of predictions. For more information, see WP:NOT. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo, keep this page. It will record a historical event in internet history.

• Delete. Interesting nothing worth keeping though Ilovebees and the AI game were innovative marketing techniques this was just a farce. --68.248.1.154 04:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It was stupid when I knew nothing about it, and it's still stupid now. Ryulong 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now. This was a rather significant incident in the last 24 hours on the internet and one that is likely to be referenced in the future. --Sauzer 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. www.eon8.com/july1statistics.gif Look, 45,000 total unique users. 6 billion people in the world. In short, this was tiny. Not notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete July 1st has come, nothing spectacular happened, this is no longer even remotely notable. syphonbyte 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the above poster. It wasn't an ad, it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't anything remotely memorable. The site will be forgotten in 2 days. --JOK3R 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, This is a classic example of a Internet phenomenon. It should be kept. dposse 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a significant event in the history of the Internet, just like ilovebees, where paranoia and human curiosity made a small insignificant website explode in popularity. --68.35.24.137 04:30, 1 July 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.