Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eon8 (2nd nomination)

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:

• Articles for deletion/Eon8
• Articles for deletion/Eon8 (2nd nomination)

The result of the debate was delete. AfD is not a vote; arguments for deletion outweigh the (quote, unquote) "arguments" for keeping. Proto///type 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: Deletion review

Eon8

Let's try this again. Will protect this page from noobs. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected from new users/anons. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep. This website was a signifgant event of the internet. It was the first of its kind: a website that absolutely no one but the creator knew what it was. Also, the first time a website was created for thes sole purpose of watching what the internet masses would do when given no information.--Buttons 17:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. There's no reason to delete it, why remove anything, if it's actually about something, and organized well? Nin10dude 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It was a very interesting experiment and it demonstrated how fast a new site can be publicised through rumours and viral posting on blogs, message boards etc. --NJ 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. No Reason not to keep it! It's a vital part of information in the history of the internet, now that we all know what the truth is there isn't any need for vandalism! 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Insanity13 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 13:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although it must be much more concise. --Zimbabweed 06:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Should be filed under the category of Internet Phenomenon, too. And the creator even said this was his own social experiment. That has to mean something. Fairy Incognito 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Pretty cool experiment, article will make an interesting read. Ouuplas 06:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete still fails WP:WEB. Are there any reputable sources (not blogs or forums) where this website has been mentioned? Kimchi.sg 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: WP:WEB is neither guideline nor policy, and WP:RS ended up a guideline (not policy) precisely because of its wording toward online sources. Shem^(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's a set of reasons that an editor, by citing it, is saying that they find it reasonable and agree with, and which demands a better response than being dismissed with empty wikilawyering.--Calton | Talk 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to get in a wad, Calton, I just don't like people going saying an article "fails" a criteron that isn't policy. Shem^(talk) 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And I don't like people who whine, "But it's NOT a rule" instead, you know, actually attempt to rebut the reasoning. In other words, technicalities, not realities. --Calton | Talk 10:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need a re-read of WP:Civility, which is a policy. Save the rhetoric for somewhere else. Shem^(talk) 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Telling people not to "get in a wad" isn't exactly civil, either. It's impolite. Kimchi.sg 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Fairy Incognito. SushiGeek 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative keep; it was significant enough for the Department of Homeland Security and CIA to take note of, apparently. Its notoriety developed in such a short period of time that it's difficult to say whether or not it'll become noteworthy enough to maintain. I err on the side of informing, for now, though. Shem^(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Where is the bit about the CIA and DHS mentioned in the article? Or for that matter, how'd you know? Kimchi.sg 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The site's current high traffic load is, unfortunately, limiting contribution right now. 'Til I can see source code and take screenshots, sorry mate. Shem^(talk) 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the best reason to change my call to "strong delete". If the CIA and DHS were really keeping an eye on the site, would you depend exclusively on the site to tell you that? Kimchi.sg 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Eon8 had a live feed of HTTP referers, so some one probably thought it'd be a great joke to spoof a visit from the CIA and the Pentagon which isn't hard at all considering there's even Firefox extensions that can do it for you [1] --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above, and until we can get good sources. Sykil 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting internet phenomenon, deserves to be an article. Xioyux 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let 'em run their damned experiments unaided by free PR, --Calton | Talk 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy delete and protect from re-creation per CSD-A8, and block the IPs of the creators. This website is still not notable, and is not mentioned in any notable media. The article is nothing but speculation despite the fact that the countdown has already reached zero, and is unsourced. Based on search engine results, this wasn't much of a phenomenon, either - 289 unique Google hits, but most of those are either garbled text (unrelated to this website) or irrelevant. Per the website, it was a test to see how gullible people are, that's it. The creators of the article were attempting to use Wikipedia as part of their little test by creating the article, in direct violation of WP:POINT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Page is now slashdotted. Also, search engines don't index pages that quickly. Noob cannon lol 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot is not some kind of gold standard of notability Bwithh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep since I'm mad it wasn't something more awesome. --Liface 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Coredesat. Em-jay-es 06:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself. As such, it is completely unverifiable according to the normal standards of reliable sources, and is also non-notable per the standard of being written about in multiple non-trivial publications. It hasn't even made much of a splash as an internet phenomenon, with only 150 hits on Technorati at this moment. I would not oppose recreation if it gets reported in multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources (Wired, CNN, etc) but I suspect this will vanish pretty quickly. Thatcher131 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It only "came out" two hours ago. Checking Google and Technorati for "I Love Bees" two hours after their first big spikes wouldn't have shown much, either. Shem^(talk) 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If, in the 6 months the site was up, it didn't generate a single Lexis/Nexis hit, that strongly suggests no one really cared (outside the ARG community maybe). If the technorati rating only spikes now, after the reveal, it shows there was not much interest during the last days of the countdown, either. (They got 38000 unique visitors in June, that's about 8 hours worth for instapundit or 2 hours of dailykos.) There is just no evidence this was a widespread phenomenon and no independent sources on which to base an article, other than the claims of the site itself and speculations on a few gamer forums. And what's with screenshots and source code? Not doing original research, I hope. Sorry. Thatcher131 07:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask of me an opinion (on an VfD page) I can't provide due to being unable to view the site, I lose. I offer to withold my VfD comments until I can view the site again, I lose. There'll never be a shortage of snarky anklebiters on Wikipedia, anxiously waiting for a chance to misrepresent someone's words, it seems. Shem^(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Delete it, nto notable. Guess what? July 1st is here. Its someone's test. Its not even a powerful web phenomena, as Thatcher131 points out. Buzz from some writers forums and some government paranoia people, which was the goal apparently from the get-go. Unlike something like "I Love Bess", which had an associated aftermath of a video game, this has none other than an "Oh look, we were fooled. Ok..." Kevin_b_er 06:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing notable, nothing worthy of real comment even. While it is somewhat funny that some people would go to vast lengths to create this site which doesn't appear to serve a real purpose, it's not content that befits Wikipedia. --Torinir 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose was stated in the website. The creator was doing a "social experiment" to see how people would respond to a fishy website with no explanation. Obviously, he got some interesting results. Fairy Incognito 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• If there's a list of Internet phenomena where this might fit, merge immediately. --Merovingian {T C @} 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We can revisit this in a year if anything fails to come of it. Hackwrench 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable enough Johhny-turbo 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until we can see the reaction outside of a few Internet communities. See if the press takes up the story on any noteable level. Mauron 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs to contain less speculation and more fact; suggesting clean-up. Sethimothy 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs cleanup, but it was still a rather significant piece of internet history as far a political statement goes, and I see no reason it can't be on Wikipedia for that reason. Ninaanilina 07:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's an event that caused a lot of people to sit up and take notice, and a social experiment that seems to have worked. --Sam 08:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - wikipedia is not the vehicle for someone's 15 minutes of fame. This website says nothing, has done nothing, is reported on by noone in a significant way.All up it's a non-notable internet experiment. There is nothing lost in deleting this and recreating in 3-6 months if anything comes of it. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with fairy, it should go down in the internet phenom category, and now that the thing is over, I don't think it justifies more then a stub, but it should ultimately still be around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNorman (talk • contribs)
• Keep For a social experiment, I have to say this is pretty interesting. As stated before, this should fall under Internet Phenomenon because numerous communities were involved in decoding the mysterious website. Douglasr007 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While this internet phenomenon might have been smaller compared to others in the past WP:MEMES says there is no consensus on what is a notable meme. But what is important is that Wikipedia has become a quick and easy source of information for niche internet phenomenon such as this. A lot of people who casually browse the internet and periodically visit websites like 2chan, ytmnd.com, and various forums will see evidence of eon8.com as a meme and one of the first things they might do is look it up on Wikipedia. I say wait a few weeks or even a few months to let this simmer and then reconsider deletion or merge with the internet phenomenon article as a small point. It's still a tough call but the internet phenomenon article contains some equally miniscule internet memes that a lot of people wouldn't be familiar with anyway (because they occured in different spheres of the internet). But I think deleting this article right now would completely go against a niche service Wikipedia provides with entries like this, --Draxle 09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fairy Incognito - also, the reaction from other larges may be classed as media Computerjoe's talk 09:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per all the people who say that it should be classed as an internet meme, as it sparked a lot of theories and webpages (at least 4 YTMND's, and probably some from other websites) in its time.
• Strong delete, there is absolutely nothing here to justify an article. No reliable sources and it's all rumour, conjecture and original research. It links to threads on slashdot/somethingawful etc that anyone with a web browser can start -- and most amusing, an IRC channel (thirty seconds work)! Ludicrous claims of notablity with nothing whatsoever to back them up. The keep votes above are completely empty of arguments beyond pure hand-waving. It's HOWTO make a bad joke of Wikipedia's pathetic deletion process with a few mates and some sock puppet accounts you created a while back. Oh, and throw in some confused Wikipedia editors too. - Motor (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment' Heed brother Motor's words!! Bwithh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea might be for someone to make a separate Wiki for more niche internet phenomenon (like this) that uses its own research (and therefore its own level of credibility) and isn't directly associated with Wikipedia itself. --Draxle 09:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Will (message me!) 09:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Any specific reason?--Andeh 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails notability, only recieved one news hit via google[2]. The whole thing is unverifiable/uncyclopedic and appears to fail WP:WEB, per Kimchi.sg.--Andeh 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Traffic Rank for eon8.com: 1,323,027 via Alexa.com, again fails notability.--Andeh 09:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Internet experiment which appears to fail WP:WEB. The article seems to be entirely original research. Plus, I rather agree with some of Motor's comments, particularly about how easy it is to subvert Wikipedia's deletion process. I am amazed how many users who have not made any edits for a while suddenly have the urge to contribute to the AfD discussions for this article by proposing Keep. Surely they can't all have woken up by coincidence. Jll 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This website wasn't up for long and yet somehow managed to launch a huge amount of paranoia. It definately deserves to be kept as a piece of internet history. I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. --Godlesswanderer 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, when did it "launch a huge amount of paranoia", where did it do this? These are basic facts necessary for an encylopedia article - linking to some threads on webforums and an IRC channel (grand total of 5 minutes work for anyone) don't count. Let's not forget its alexa traffic ranking: 1,323,027. If this AFD survives because a headcouting admin does the closing it's defintely worth a DRV. I haven't seen a single sensible argument for keep yet. - Motor (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The website, whilst not notable on its own, is worth an article due to the amount of speculation it caused. --Sanguinus 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a little piece of Internet history that caused a lot of fuss. You have to keep it.--Matt Pullen 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VER WP:NOR based on WP:RS which are zilch. I think it's sad that people would vote their feelings over policy. Ste4k 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep major fad and a part of internet history. Lapinmies 11:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Major fads last longer than 30 minutes.. especially internet phenomenon.--Andeh 11:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as much as I enjoyed speculating about it, it isn't really notable or important enough and it didn't receive attention outside of webforums and YTMND. It was popular for all of one day, and ultimately, it was pretty pointless. --Burbster 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motorand Thatcher 131 because WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:NOR are policy while WP:MEME is not (and this wouldn't meet WP:MEME's "multiple non-trivial published works" requirement). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Over three million page hits and 9GB of bandwidth down the drain in less than a month ought to qualify as being notable. --Guess Who 12:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep delete Star Wars Kid and then we'll talk. being mentioned repeatedly on YTMND does not justify deletion on its own. --G0zer 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Star Wars Kid received media attention, this did not.--Andeh 12:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, this just happened. --G0zer 12:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Surely that's the point. It's happened, it's over and done with, and nobody in the mainstream media noticed or cared. ~ Matticus78 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Per Matticus78.--Andeh 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Poor comparison. Star Wars Kid has been reported in the mainstream news media. Show me the article on CBS or BBC News about Eon8. ~ Matticus78 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment my point is that a standard that calls Star Wars Kid notable merely because the phenomenon was mentioned repeatedly in the media is a deeply flawed standard. there is nothing more inherently notable about a video of someone dancing around with imitation movie props than there is about a website that pointed out something interesting about internet phenomena. in fact, the opposite is true, and if current guidelines say Star Wars Kid is an article with encyclopedic value and Eon8 is not, then that is a call to rewrite the guidelines. --G0zer 12:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I'm waiting to see if there'll be anything in next week's issue of New Scientist, they may report something about this in their Technology section or otherwise. --Film11 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's unlikely, there's pretty much no media attention regarding the website.--Andeh 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Response Why would New Scientist or even Wired cover this? There is nothing special or original about the self-promoting techniques used. Internet viral marketing has been around for a long time. Bwithh 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it appears that most of the Keep votes have been made due to the users interest of the website, not how it conforms with the Wikipedia policies.--Andeh 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has come to be known as an Internet phenomenon, and is (was?) very high traffic, and extremely popular across the Internet.Will 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, on what are you basing this claim? - Motor (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Eon8 was a massive in-joke amongst some of the most vocal, yet "insular" forums on the Internet. It has not, and probably will never hit the mainstream press seeing as it hasn't captured the fascination of "popular culture". Fails WP:WEB. If people want to document this as a "social experiment", than this article far from documents any methodology, analysis or conclusion that form the fundamental basis of any experiment. At the moment, this article details nothing more than the conjecture and speculation that surrounded the peak of the fad's hype. Fails WP:NOR The bottom line is that this article serves nothing but to satisfy the vanity of those who got caught up in the atmosphere and hype of the craze. i.e. The "I was there!" mentality common in SomethingAwful and YTMND forums. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  13:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting insight into human nature. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As Netsnipe. Notability first, article second. No rumours don't count. Self-referential, unfunny joke masquerading as an experiment. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity -- GWO
• Delete as failing WP:SPAM. Viral marketing is not notable. --DarkAudit 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, If viral marketing is not notable, then why do you have articles on The Lost Experience and Ilovebees? dposse 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete can't to considered a "fad" or a "piece of pop culture" because it received no media attention. --FrankCostanza 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Insanity13. This turned out to be an interesting social experiment and sure caused a lot of fuss over the internet. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 14:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, This is a classic example of a internet meme and viral marketing, like the Lost Experience or I Love Bees. This sites bandwidth was huge. It should be kept. dposse 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, how is that statistics image hosted on theinvisman.com connected to the website? It could be for any site.--Andeh 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, because Mike (the person who created Eon8) linked to it on his results page. dposse 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep People will want to know what this is and will look it up in Wikipedia... it was certainly big enough. Mphudson 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You're forgetting that the only people who even know about the existence of Eon8 are exactly the same people who read the same forums and blogs feeding the hype. They don't need their fix from Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Who would want to look it up? It's not in the papers, TV or radio and basically non-existant on news websites.--Andeh 15:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment A quick search of Google news shows that only two news stories exist on this website. [3] --FrankCostanza 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of which are not very notable news sites.--Andeh 15:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --FrankCostanza 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wasn't just a large in-joke, it was one of the more interesting things on the Internet, and shows exactly what happens when the Internet is confused, like the creator said, a successful social experiment. Userpie 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- They say it's a social experiment and though I'm the highly gullible type to respond to unknown countdowns. But this should be in with the rest of the internet nemes. SignalMan 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - fairly notable in the internet community, as per the comments by Dposse, WillFirminger and others Darksun 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- fails WP:V Ashibaka tock 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How exactly does it do that? The website is right there. It's not like we are pulling this infomation out of thin air. dposse 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can't be verified because there are no notable websites which have mentioned the website to very it actually happened.--Andeh 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- It's not a marketing thing, so people who voted "Delete" for that have lost their argument. TheDavesr 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Marketing includes self-promotion. And it turns out to be completely pointeless too. We've won our argument Bwithh 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's plenty of claims here that this is notable or interesting yet no one has provided any reliable sources for these claims other than what individual contributers think. This AFD has to be the perfect example of why wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. Please someone give evidence as to how this meets WP:notability or more specifically WP:WEB. I notice this has been described as a piece of viral marketing. By definition this is not viral marketing as it is not marketing anything. Everything in wikipedia has to be verfiable by reliable sources yet the claims about this website and the effect it had are not. We do not give an article to every short lived fad that happens to be flavour of the month over at YTMND or something awful. Next week no one will even care about this thing. Ydam 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notably internet phenomenon. Surely any future "mysterious" sites will be considered in comparison to eon8. It has left a mark, even though its timer was not long enough to have it reach mainstream media. --Gemini6Ice 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep becoming something of a meme, good deal of google hits (13,000+), seems quite notable to me. Joeyramoney 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Results 221 - 227 after google has omitted some entries very similar to the 227 already displayed.--Andeh 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

what google are you using? Joeyramoney 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the last page, note that google says About 13,000 hits.--Andeh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this is a definately notable internet phenomena, on the level of things like the John Titor posts. --Krsont 16:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if this isn't notable, how the hell is goatse notable!? this page has been on for like, six months, and I think it was on CNN. this page also got more than ten thousand page views when the final seconds arose. this is definatly notable. --TravisBatos 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• goatse is notable because it was widely used across the internet in many forms, and no this page wasn't on CNN. What makes you think the page got 10,000+ page views in the final seconds?--Andeh 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as my last vote. Zos 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• comment what i fail to understand about this whole thing is, why put up such a big fuss about something that's not hurting anyone? why does the inclusion of an internet phenomenon make wikipedia less useful? Joeyramoney 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you not read any criticism of Wikipedia? One thing that comes up time and time again is that people say Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously because it is full of articles on trivia, minor aspects of pop culture, and internet memes that everyone forgot about a week after the article was written. So every article like this that is kept is just one more weapon for people to use to discredit any hope Wikipedia has of being taken seriously as an information resource. Not hurting anybody? Sorry, I don't see it that way. It's hurting me, because I wanted Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip chatroom. — Haeleth Talk 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Did get around a bit. --InShaneee 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Seeing as this AfD will probably get closed as no consensus, I'm not going to leave any rationale right now. I would say wait a month or so, and then see if anyone cares about this article. —Whomp [T] [C] 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. We can revisit in a month if necessary. --Randy Johnston (‽) 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's probably going to be more talked about over time. To delete it now would be acting too hastily. Cathie 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a notable social expermient that has spread to many forums. If other Internet phenomena such as the llama song, goatse, and The Demented Cartoon Movie can become Wikipedia articles, why can't this? It has 13,400 google hits and has made the news. --Jeames 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Its not a notable social experiment because there's nothing original and special in its techniques. Internet viral marketing has been around for a long time Bwithh 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not assert notability per WP:WEB! YTMND, 4Chan and the Something Awful forums do not equate to encyclopedic notability! KWH 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as eon8 is now slashdotted (which fulfills WP:WEB #3). Noob cannon lol 17:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: also, google news has now indexed a few stories about eon8.Noob cannon lol 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • no it doesn't WP:WEB #3 says content is distributed via a site the key word being distributed. The content is not being distributed via slashdot so this criteria does not apply Ydam 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What else can "distributed" mean except posted online? How else can a website "distribute" something? Send email to everyone in the world? Certainly now that it is on Slashdot is a sign that it may be become more important; bloggers may pick it up, look into it, and start talking about it some more, making it more notable. That's why I say we give it time. Enigma00 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you reade the footnote for that entry it gives a good example of what is and isint distributed content. Ydam 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It meets WP:WEB #1... Look at eon8 in Google News, there are articles on the website. --Jeames 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It has four to be precise (as of writing) non of which come from reliable sources. Ydam 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting experiment, but does not meet WP:WEB or appear to be a notable internet phenomemon. --Samael775 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Internet phenomenon. I never heard of this web site until I saw it mentioned in the previous AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot archive, nor archive.org. More important, does not meet WP:V. If any notice has been taken by mainstream media meeting reliable source guidelines, nobody has yet provided references. Silly prank with a perfectly predictable reaction. If it ever does become notable the article can be re-created without prejudice then. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's too early to dismiss this, as there is still time for people to find out about it. Also, it was a very intruiging social experiment for the internet age, and is certainly worthy for that reason. I say give it some time. Enigma00 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivially fails WP:WEB. Only mention of any notability is Slashdot, and a Slashdot mention does not an article make. - Merzbow 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith especially, but also others. Inner Earth 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but it probably isn't notable. Even if it gets press coverage -- which it hasn't, yet -- it will be famous for 15 minutes at most, thereafter to be forgotten forever. Encyclopedias are places to go to find out about human knowledge, not places to go to catch up on the latest net gossip. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7 and Ban the IPs of the article creators There is nothing new or special about what this website did. Internet and very marketing and publicity techniques of this kind have been around for a long time and are widely known - which is why so many people assumed that this was a marketing website. Not only did the website do nothing special in its promotion techniques, it admits that it has no other purpose than to get people excited over nothing. This deeply non-notable, unoriginal and uninspired waste of people's time and abuse of wikipedia during it, should be speedily deleted and the article creators punished for their relentless and obnoxious abuse of wikipedia and the afd process for their own selfish promotional purposes. - as I've said in the previous afd discussion about this (where did that go?) Bwithh 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • eon8 is a notable website because it did get people excited over nothing. It may have used the same techniques as a marketing website, but instead of attempting to get attention over an actual event, it instead left its true purpose up to the imaginations of the fans and viewers of the website. It was an experiment on how the public would react to such a "mysterious" website, and therefore had a purpose, and can be considered notable. Also, your statement about the article creators being obnoxious assumes bad faith. --Jeames 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? dposse 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought I was being quite restrained compared to other thoughts Bwithh 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Response. Okay, leaving commercial marketing aside, this kind of hoax website viral technique is also well-used by artists who are trying to provoke reactions from the public sometimes with surreal or apparently meaningless content. (some of these artists will, in time, become marketers of course). Still nothing new or special here. I'm not assuming bad faith about anything. The creators can be obnoxious without being conscious or deliberate about it. They're something like happy-go-lucky innocent-hearted telemarketers in that case then Bwithh 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You can't jump to conclusions about their motivations. That's still assumption of bad faith. It's possible that you are correct, but it's still possible that these are people attempting to assist Wikipedia, and not be, ahem, happy-go-lucky innocent-hearted telemarketers. Wikipedia already has a lot of articles on Internet websites that are non-original, for example, its amazing collection of Shock Sites. One shock site is no different from the next in its methods, yet Wikipedia has articles or descriptions on each and every one of them. --Jeames 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if it doesn't deserve an article unto itself, some information about it can be merged into a pre-existed article about internet culture or something? Enigma00 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Good thought, and also, I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions about this. We shouldn't get rid of this article blindly, assuming that the article creators were just pranksters, and eon8 does deserve some mention even if the article does end up being deleted. --Jeames 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Send in Strike Team first; come to conclusions later Bwithh 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: It's not a marketing attempt, nor some pointless self-promotion. The site archieved enough coverage to make it noteworthy. If the website is not noteworthy enough to justify its own article, it should at the very least be merged into an article about the phenomenon it attempted to test. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Query By the way, does anyone know why this afd was closed with the article deleted by an admin last night, but suddenly it was restored again today without deletion review or any comment about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8 Bwithh 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was because many felt that the afd was closed too early and the article deleted too soon. I could be wrong, but that's the impression that i got. dposse 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep notable Internet meme. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think we should keep this because it shows people the experiment of life. (notably, fear of the unknown)--Aidepikiw0000 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Destroy, pillage and salt the earth of this accursed article for all above delete reasons and the perfectly valid reasons for deletion on the other AfD. And ban IP's per above. SM247^{My Talk} 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The banning of IPs still assumes bad faith. There is no obvious evidence about the motivations of the article creators. --Jeames 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong strong strong KEEP I cant believe this is still being debated. It was a briliant social experiment. Look how everyone is reacting....TruthCrusader 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, the reactions on this discussion page show that the website did have an impact on different online communities, including this one. --Jeames 21:02,
    • Reponse The reaction on Wikipedia is about whether to delete the article or not. Just like Wikipedia does with afd articles every day. Wow, this "brilliant social experiment" is really teaching me new insights about wikipedia through its provocative controversy. By the way, I am being sarcastic Bwithh 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Response response Yes, and I think that that was supposed to be a bit of a joke there, not something to take seriously. Geez --Jeames 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete nn, fails a plethora of wikipedia alphabet soup, and completely unencyclopedic.... who, except for a select few geeks, will ever care about this 30 years from now? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Now apply that logic to many other articles that are not AfD. What do you get? Deletions. Noob cannon lol 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A notable social experiment that has gained a large amount of Internet fame. Online noteriety is no different from the real world sort. Xuanwu 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I just heard of "eon8" somewhere and wondered what it was. So I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found out what it was. That's what encyclopedias are for. It would have been a shame if I had heard about it later and the article had been deleted forever. And it's not like it hurts to keep it. Sippan 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears the traffic rank for eon8.com has seen a spike. According to [4] its rank has jumped to 2,334 today. Either way just because hundreds of thousands of people are discovering it after the fact I still suggest a merge with internet phenomenon. --Draxle 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep' Wikipedia's purpose is to catalogue our history. Just because something was a Hoax, doesn't make it any less deserving of an article to document it. --TrekMaster 22:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep. It's also worth noting that this website was not a hoax; it never claimed to be anything, and it was nothing. Learn the definition of a hoax. This site did good in its job to find out just how the public reacted, and the news is still catching on. --Xkeeper 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Boring and uncreative, but seems to have obtained sufficient notability, including now Slashdot coverage [5].--Eloquence* 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article needs more sources. They have one news article I could see from a site anyone's ever heard of, and apparently slashdot is paying some attention to it. But that doesn't mean it's notable. A plethora of news articles, or web hits in the millions would make me reconsider. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used by people worldwide. Articles should have appeal to a broad spectrum of readers, and not just a small subset, as this article appears to do. --NMChico24 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As the stats note, it got three million page hits last month. Does that fufill your "web hits in the millions" statement? --Guess Who 22:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Slashdot (I think) counts as a reliable third party known for fact checking. At the very least it counts as a news source on par with many print newspapers. The fact it has covered the event therefore makes Eon8 notable, as it has satisfied WP:WEB. Also, the sheer number of notable websites that have discussed it (4chan, YTMND, pOnju, etc.) also makes it notable. Again, Internet fame is no different from real world fame. Xuanwu 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • /. isn't known for spellchecking, much less fact checking. Kotepho 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Real internet memes are things that arise naturally. This one was deliberately created and will be forgotten quickly. If it isn't, recreate the article when the dust has settled. (And no, slashdot isn't a reliable source for anything.) Fan1967 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't it just as valid to keep the article and delete it after the dust has settled if it really DOES fade? Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know how you would define a meme "arising naturally" since for a meme to spread it requires people actively promoting it. On an unrelated note, I think the word "meme" sounds stupid. --Sysys 23:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Phenomenon is an alternate word you can use... --Jeames 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a difference between people spreading it and deliberately creating it. This was nothing but some guy creating a website with a countdown. Fan1967 00:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment He didn't encourage it to a great extent-- he did bring it to some peoples' attention in online forums, but let the general public explore the site on their own. Therefore, it was allowed to "arise naturally." He wanted it to arise naturally anyway, that's why it was labeled an experiment. --Jeames 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As opposed to a website being accidentally created? Look, I know what you mean. There are plenty of purposely mysterious-looking websites. But this one, for whatever reason, got a lot of attention. There are lots of people (example: myself) who heard about it, didn't know what was going on, and turned to wikipedia to see if it had an explanation. I think this article should stay. --Sysys 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Push it to the limit! Actually, I think it's notable because it's become pretty well-known. Esteffect 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. People say this "was interesting" and "history". A pretty rainbow may be enjoyed by thousands, but it is transient - so was this. Merge any applicable info on social issues into Viral Marketing and/or Internet Memes and delete. Finally, and most importantly, how many above have said "But you have article XYZap, why not this?" Do you really want to use those as a wedge to justify this, when this will then be a wedge to introduce every following web performance? Shenme 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The references to other articles are to show that this article is just as notable as ones that already exist in Wikipedia. Since it has been agreed, or at least reached an agreement, that the other articles meet Wikipedia criteria, it should only stand to reason that this, being a similar article, also meets Wikipedia criteria. And yes, I agree that arguments stating that this was "very interesting" and a part of "history" are weak, but there are other, more valid arguments as well towards keeping the article. --Jeames 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyone who votes keep is a sockpuppnoobwhoretroll! Ban ban! The pretty rainbow didn't make it onto Slashdot, did it? Making this sort of notoriety in less than three days is notable, WP:WEB relies on a website being up for months or years - hence "wiki not a crystal ball". But the impact of this has been wide-spread and for the most part pretty astounding for what is arguably simply a map with a countdown. Tokakeke 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Part of me thinks the phenomenon makes it notable, but the other part of me has read WP:WEB Tromboneguy0186 01:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to WP:WEB. ChadyWady| 02:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of this discussion seems to involve WP:WEB. Right now it is uncertain if WP:WEB applies to memes, although it is certain that WP:MEME does. WP:MEME, however, is no more than a proposed guideline. Thus, neither WP:WEB nor WP:MEME can be used as arguments for or against the notability of an Internet meme, until the merge debate between WP:WEB and WP:MEME is resolved. Until then, neither guideline fits this situation. --Jeames 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this AfD doesn't appear like it's going to reach concensus, so maybe it should just be re-listed in months time when the user-activity has died down a bit.--Andeh 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. With no clear guidelines, opinion, or outcome, there's no point in continuing this much further. The best that can be done now is to wait and see whether or not eon8 becomes more or less notable. --Jeames 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than many other items on List of Internet phenomena --TwoThumbsDown 02:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unremarkable when it was created; unremarkable now; forgotten in two weeks. Colin 02:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep' The fact that so many editors have participated in this deletion discussion suggests that the topic is clearly notable. I mean, there are tons of articles describing less notable things on wikipedia that seem fine to me. We should make this article an article though, not just like a random jumble of quotations and bits of info. --Waldroplab 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment overparticipation in an AfD is not a source of notability because anybody can edit it and we don't know precisely their motivation. Given the fact that most of the posts are subtle copies of text and reasoning this is doubly so. SM247^{My Talk} 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems very notable and created quite a lot of buzz, so should be documented. -Logan Williams 05:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WEB K1Bond007 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB does not apply to Internet memes (see my earlier comment).
    • Whatever, the point is, I fail to see its notability. K1Bond007 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article now contains a copyright violation, and I suspect a serious violation of WP:POINT. I have changed my argument accordingly. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see WP:NOT). Also fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I still have some more things to talk about: could be possible copyright infringement. Bwithh says that possibly the strongest choice what he says is to speedy delete and ban the IPs of who created it. I agree with him. Currently, it's a suspicious website. The website says that the 8th eon could be "the end of the world", but it could be a hoax. Still, I want to have this article be strong, speedily deleted under A7 and ban the IPs of who created it. --Bigtop

(customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could be also A8 speedy delete. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do the article creators need to be banned from Wikipedia? It's still possible that these were just innocent Wikipedians trying to help Wikipedia, not harm it. It cannot be certain what the intentions of the original article creators were. --Jeames 09:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement? The material on eon8.com isn't even copyrighted. Noob cannon lol 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I came here originally to learn exactly what eon8 was, just because so many people have been talking about it. Just look how many votes there are right now. When I put the "Gwen Stefani discography" page up for deletion a while back, that only got about 8 votes, and that's an article related to a world-record-holding pop icon. If there wasn't any notability, there wouldn't be this many votes.--Josh 06:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The number of votes a particular article receives in an AFD debate is not an indicator of notability per any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;;

• Comment But it does indicate that a lot of people have searched for this article and found that someone wants to delete the information. I don't understand why a topic that so many people want to read about is not notable enough. Common sense should prevail in this case. Lapinmies 07:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete AUTOVANIHOAXCRUFT ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I only heard of this site yesterday from the AFD nom. If it's that huge, how come most people only heard of it yesterday. It will be forgotten in a week or so. Most of the keep votes are from people who regulate that site, or YTMND. It doesn't even fit WP:WEB. I have a suggestion to make- how about AfD can only be discussed by established editors to advoid these situations. andrew 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB does not apply to Internet memes (see my earlier comment). --Jeames 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And Afd should be open to every Wikipedian. If every Wikipedian can edit, every Wikipedian should have a voice in what they editied, or what they believe should be in. --Jeames 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I think some people here are overguaging the notability of this website because they had personal experience with it. Obviously, a lot of people here interact with the Internet. I certainly spend my fair share of time online, although I had never heard of eon8 before its article got nominated for deletion, likely because I don't do online forums or games. And that is why I don't think this really even qualifies as much of an Internet meme. If a person who spends a lot of time online but doesn't go to specialized sites doesn't hear about it, it probably wasn't really that notable. Besides that, it fails WP:WEB, still. It's not likely to have much cultural impact, and the fact that it's speculative in nature whether it will or won't means that it doesn't merit an article now, as WP is not a crystal ball. It really has nothing going for it other than the fact that some Internet forumites wasted time speculating about it, and that's just not encyclopaedic stuff right there. GassyGuy 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Failing WP:WEB does not make it a nonnotable meme (see my earlier comment). --Jeames 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, does it make a difference whether or not the Wikipedians in this discussion have been involved personally with eon8 or not? What they believe is an article is what they believe is an article. --Jeames 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Wha? --Jeames 10:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Replying to every delete vote doesn't exactly make you look like a disinterested party, but on the assumption that you're really just trying but failing to understand what I've said: I made reference to WP:WEB because it's a sensible guideline (to me) and it is one with which people are familiar and to which I can link. I am of the mind that failing it is a reason for deletion, so I cited that as one of my reasons. You don't have to point out (repeatedly) that failing it isn't an automatic reason for deletion, or else we wouldn't be having this mess of a discussion, so, as you made your views regarding WP:WEB clear, I'm not sure why you've told almost every user who's cited it that they shouldn't. As to whether it makes a difference whether or not if users were involved: while I certainly think people who were involved deserve the ability to voice their opinions too, I also think it skews their point of view. For example, in my life, there are some specific local annual events that I've often attended and that have impacted me. If there were articles on them on WP (there aren't) that were nominated for deletion, it would be hard to me to realize that, while they hold personal significance, they really aren't, in the grand scheme of things, notable. As to Dpbsmith's comment, a paraphrase would be: "Believing doesn't make it so." I hope this has helped to clarify the commentary for you. GassyGuy 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Look at the traffic here; notable by all means. Heard about this on the radio today, and this apparently attracted federal investigation. Good enough for me? Gerk 10:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Because Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Things that news "happens to" often find their way here. Gerk 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no substantial evidence that this attracted any type of military attention, the referal links could've easily been faked to increase speculation/attention.--Andeh 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Touché. Strong Keep, nevertheless. I don't see what the big deal is as to opposition. Gerk 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What makes this Internet meme different from the rest of the memes on List of Internet phenomena? This one has been subjected to such a long discussion, yet many of the other phenomena are even less popular. --Jeames 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I see no valid reason to delete this article. It currently consists of a description of what the site is and was, not speculation. It's not our duty to determine what's relevant and what's not. Statistics provided by the site indicate that it received over 45k thousand visitors. That's more than the population of some settlements which I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, as far as I know, this is the first page of its type. It could evolve into a larger internet phenomenon, and could have unforeseen consequences. Since the information is valid, keep it. Velessar 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the lack of mention in the popular media is not pertinent. They are primarily sources of profit and entertainment: if it's not going to sell, it's not being mentioned by them. We are not to be subjected by such restrictions. Velessar 12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The lack of mention is most pertinant. Wikipedia is about verifyability and reliable sources. Where are they for this site ? All we have is a site talking about itself and some people clicking a link. It is impossible to write about this website in an encyclopediac style as it has nothing of importance written about it to reference to. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, "Statistics provided by the site indicate that it received over 45k thousand visitors." -- let me introduce you to the concept of reliable sources. No-one making keep comments seems to acknowledge or even understand this idea... there is nothing to back up the wild claims people keep making. Every single keep vote made here misses the point, makes baseless claims, and seems to think that Wikipedia is a repository for cataloguing every transient web fad that a few foolish web forum inhabitants indulged in. - Motor (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Baseless claims? Aren't the forums primary sources? --Jeames 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Most definately not, see WP:RS.--Andeh 12:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's why I took care to note that the statistics were provided by the site. So far, the only baseless claim I see here is that the site was "not notable". It obviously took place, it seemingly was noticed, and we have no way of determining how it might develop. Velessar 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I took care to note that the statistics were provided by the site. -- and I'm dating Jennifer Aniston, plus I also work for MI5 as a superspy... while taking time off from working on cutting edge physics. Can I have my own article please? - Motor (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, you may or may not be making that up. As the website may or not be making stuff up about the number of hits it got. I personally believe that you're making stuff up as you have reason to do so, and they are not because they don't.Velessar 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • They don't have a reason to make up about the hits they get? Really? Not even that if they get fifty hits, they're nobodies, but if they get fifty million hits, they're very popular? That's not a reason anymore, now? Because it's sure as hell been a pretty popular one for just that activity in the past. Is it the case this time around? I have no idea, but taking those numbers at face value isn't really the way to go. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
          • If you're more comfortable with other statistics, then how about the fact that today eon8.com moved up over 1,000 rank points to 1,246 on Alexa? [6] Also, you can see the graph there showing the number of page views. --Jeames 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Should be kept but tidied up. There are some news articles appearing now about it, just give it some time. I will add some references as and when they appear. Localzuk ^(talk) 12:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not every meme is notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What, we're on a new AfD now? I can't keep up... But no, begone with it. July 1 came, July 1 went, nothing important happened. No new Bond movie, no terrorist attack, no nothing. Some guy experimenting; I think that's cool, but I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. I also think that arguments based on how much discussion we get about it here are straw men. Just because eon8's inclusion in Wikipedia is something many of us feel strongly about has no bearing on whether eon8 is suitable for inclusion or not. Notability is not really determined by how many people argue about it on the internet. I'm sure this can be written up under Internet phenomenon or something, but that's pretty much it. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If notability for memes isn't determined by the number of people on the Internet that take notice, how is it? I don't see any news sources or anything to that effect on most of the Internet meme articles. --Jeames 15:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My point is that it's not determined by the number of people arguing about it on Wikipedia. It's not that hard to get us riled up. -- Captain Disdain 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, I misunderstood your statement. And yes, I can tell. But it is determined by the number of people on the Internet that take notice, although it isn't by the number of people on the Internet arguing over its article. --Jeames 16:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I also think that because of the very nature of the internet, websites that people talk about a lot for a couple of days aren't necessarily at all significant. The net tends to be pretty ephemeral. I'd say that something that people keep talking about two weeks -- or two months -- after the event (even if it is at a reduced intensity) is far more significant than something a lot of people blog about for a couple of days. Considering that eon8 never got much attention until its six-month countdown was almost at its very end, I think this has all the makings of a tempest in a teacup. Compared to Ilovebees, which really engaged people, had them running around solving riddles and receiving weird phone calls and whatnot, eon8 was essentially just a timer that only got real attention when it was almost at an end. Is this going to keep people engaged for months to come? It's possible. If it does, then I think it merits an article. Now it's just one internet thing among thousands and thousands other internet things... and not a significant one at that. YMMV. -- Captain Disdain 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment By the way, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but there are a few more people on the talk page that are also putting their two cents in on the debate. --Jeames 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Caused a lot of buzz on the Internet. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Seeing as this is prone to plenty of destructive edits, we need to keep a close watch on this article. A very close watch. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Interesting though this website is, it is still very much non-notable. Unless it gets some mainstream media coverage, I say delete per Captain Disdain. MarvintheParanoidAndroid 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Why does it require mainstream media coverage? Most of the other memes haven't had mainstream media coverage. --Jeames 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How is Slashdot not a reliable source, when WP:RS itself cites it as a source? --Jeames 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- The discussion on this page and others among the Internet Fora of the United States and Canada lead me to agree that this page is notable, just look at all the discussion its caused! I came here trying to find more information only to find that the article had been deleted and no history was available, causing further discussion. Even if this is turned into a redirect for a section on the page for Internet Hoax it should still lead somewhere to information about this thing. --Superbeatles 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is informative, what else does it need? --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There are a lot more trivial events/things covered on Wikipedia than Eon8. Yeah, it was a lame website prank, but at the same time, it was a significant event in the history of the internet. If Leeroy Jenkins can make it on here, then so can Eon8. Danielkitchener1 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per TonyM and dposse.—thegreentrilby 02:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep I believe that this website has become an important social engineering experiment. I do believe though that it would be a good idea to rewrite the article, and add more background information. Adam Stevenson 02:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete notability and sources first wikipedia article second; sorry. /. is not a reliable source. Kotepho 05:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot isn't just the only source. Actually, I don't even know if Slashdot is being used as a source. The guy who did eon8 is in fact helping Wikipedia get some info about the website. Douglasr007 06:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS#References --Jeames 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now because it appears notable and it seems reasonable to expect that more secondary sources will be available in the future. If there are no good secondary sources after about a month, delete as this will imply that it wasn't notable enough after all. --ais523 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As legitimate an internet fad as any other. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The intensity of the repeated debates on whether this should be deleted or not seem to indicate that there is some legitimate interest in the site. --Rikoshi 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block those who vote keep as sockpuppets - spam and teenage vanity cruft, nothing more. Is is just me or is everyone voting keep under the age of 12 and thus doesnt understand what "encyclopedic" means? -Ste|vertigo 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I voted keep, Steve. :-) --Eloquence* 23:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why do you insist to ban those who are voicing their opinion on an article's AFD? You also didn't need to call us all "under the age of 12." Merely because we think apart from you. Userpie 23:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Congrats, you broke WP:AGF. Categorizing a majority of voters as sockpuppets really does you no favor, considering you have no evidence to categorize them as such. Saying an internet phenomenon is "spam and teenage vanity cruft" and that anyone who disagrees is "under the age of 12" is blatant immaturity at its best. Tokakeke 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This says pretty much what I was just about to. --Rikoshi 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I voted keep, and am frankly insulted that I was called a sockpupet and under the age of 12 for simply voicing my opinion. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This page is semiprotected, which means anyone who edited it before your comment or for some time afterwards would have to have had a username from before the end of the countdown. --ais523 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and salt the earth. A social experiment doesn't become a meme because YTMND got their hooks into it.  RasputinAXP  c 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I had actually given some thought to creating this article at one point and decided that the notability was in question and that if the topic was still of intrest in a year it woudl probbly be worth of an article. As it is I think it deserves a mention in the article Breaching experiment or some similar article. Dalf | Talk 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fred Bauder 23:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ➥the twelve-year-old Epopt who doesn't understand what "encyclopedic" means 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: According to Louis, one of the guys who runs the official Eon8 website, he was interviewed by Politiken. If true, that means Eon8 now satisfies WP:WEB and should be kept. I added a link to said interview in the article itself. Xuanwu 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Try and find additional evidence of this or an official confirmation from the Politiken website as there's nothing stopping the website creator from making things up.--Andeh 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• THE WORLD'S STRONGEST KEEP EVER eon8 was the coolest thing ever, you have to admit it. I totally want to keep this article. I don't see why everyone is up in it's grill. Did I say that right? Grill.--Mark 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to his user page and this AfD.
• Delete, not even remotely notable website. —Stormie 08:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable --Grouse 12:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of evidence of coverage in any mainstream media. Would support merge and redirect to list of internet memes. Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Internet phenomena. I heard about it from the first AfD; if it was notable, I'm sure I'd have caught something about it before that or at least heard about it from associates who browse the forums where it gained its "notoriety" - no dice on that. Let's move on. Tony Fox (speak) 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep - It has been mentioned in mainstream media, the second-largest Danish newspaper Politiken had devoted the whole frontpage of the second section to talk about eon8, and there was also a small picture of the website on the frontpage of the newspaper. So that should mean that the page qualifies for WP:WEB...
  
  If you want evidence, I can scan the newspaper page for you Snailwalker | talk 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an article about eon8 in the Danish Wikipedia? There doesn't seem to be one under the name eon8. If there is one, could you provide us with a link to it? If it's not big enough in the Danish mainstream press to warrant an article in the Danish Wikipedia, then its mention in the Danish mainstream press isn't enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I must say that it is a very bad argument to use. The Danish wikipedia contains as of now 44952 articles and many other important stories in the news never makes it to the Danish wikipedia. The fact is that is is not very updated. But I can just mention that the article in the Danish newspaper Politiken had a link to the English wikipedia-article, and therefore I think that it justifies the article. Snailwalker | talk 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • According to your user page, you speak Danish. You give eon8 a "very strong keep." You obviously think it is important. You say it has gotten exposure in mainstream Danish media. Why haven't you added a least a stub about this to the Danish Wikipedia? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe the admins there are corrupt? I didn't know that non-english wikipedians must contribute to non-english wikis. Lapinmies 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment about Politiken article I just ran a Factiva international newswire, newspaper and magazine database search covering 20+ languages and over 10,000 sources for "eon8" and "eon8.com". The Danish Politiken article was literally the one and only hit. Bwithh 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. —tregoweth (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nonnotable, or at least Merge and redirect as per Tony Fox, who will remember this one month down the line? Just look at the alexa graph, this is the ultimate phenomena, intense interest one day, and no-one visits the next. Mallocks 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Dragonfiend 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An online search of a database available through my library which contains the full text of The New York Times from 2000 through July 4, 2006 on "eon8" gives the result "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." I can't imagine any other search term that should be used. There has now been time for the ripples from this event to reach the New York Times, and if it hasn't mentioned it in four days I doubt that it ever will. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An online search of Wired News via their Search facility yields There are no Search Results for "eon8" from Wired News. Similarly for a Google site search: "Your search - site:www.wired.com eon8 - did not match any documents. There has now been time for the ripples from this event to reach Wired; if Wired hasn't mentioned it in four days I doubt that it ever will. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Roger Wilco. Stanfordandson 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  No user by the name of Roger Wilco has participated in this AfD.--Andeh 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or at leaste Merge and Redirect, as per Tony Fox. -- danntm ^{T | C} 01:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it, it was fun watching everyone shit bricks over this lovely little social experiment. I suspect the deletionists here are the ones that got egged in the face. ROFL!! E. Sn0 =31337= 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't care about egg on our faces. We care about the all the pins being stabbed into Wikipedia's body Bwithh 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is my vote, but it's hard for me to put my explanation into words. --Wikipikarefulgenschu 06:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • • Comment about Media Coverage I just ran a Factiva international newswire, newspaper and magazine database search covering 20+ languages and over 10,000 sources for "eon8" and "eon8.com". There was literally one and only one hit - the Danish Politiken newspaper article. And btw as said above, the eon8 much-ado-about-nothing didnt even make Wired magazine[7]. There other users out there with Factiva or LexisNexis access which can confirm this most minimal level of media coverage. Bwithh 07:19, 5 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.