Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Haas Was Right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. The delete votes (which are in the minority anyway, even with apparent single-purpose accounts discounted) are based on the fact that the article uses no verifiable secondary sources, and were made before it was updated to reference a number of both accepted and appropriate sources. Although there are a number of comments that are simply 'I like it', there is at best consensus that the article should be kept until its relationship with a (possible) parent subject is established, and at worst no consensus that it should be deleted. ck lostsword•T•C 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Haas Was Right

Ethan Haas Was Right (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No reliable secondary sources, way too much original research. --- RockMFR 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Keep Aristoi 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont know all of Wikipedia rules but the article seems to be wriiten well with references.Rosario lopez 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The references are all from independent media and are from blogs and other sources of this promotion. Corpx 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: EHWW is in-game material; I would argue it is a reliable source, then, as far as the ARG is concerned. Other blogs are referenced as possible in-game, and known out-of-game— no information is cited from them; rather, they themselves are cited as being possible affiliatees or non-afilliates, with summaries. I realize there are some cited as information sources; as the Internet community takes these blogs at face-value, there are no sites out there documenting this information besides those. If any of the news sites were posting comprehensive information, believe you me, I'd be more than happy to cite them instead.
A second point I'd like to bring up is that the aforementioned blogs aren't the primary source of information on the website— the website itself is the primary source— but they are, at this point, the documentation of it. The only other option is to cite all of the information back to the primary site— as EHWR is primarily a flash game at this point, it's impossible to point people to the exact places where they could verify the information for themselves, short of them completing the game. And for the videos, I felt it more appropriate to link to a transcription of the videos than to, say, link to the videos themselves on YouTube.
As far as the other blogs go, I could remove the summaries attached to them, if you it's decided that such is irrelevant information. However, I would argue that for possible affiliates, as it's already known that one blog is in-game; thus, there is a possibility that there are others in-game, hence the information about them.
Overall, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the article. If you believe there is a better way to cite the information regarding the website in question, or that specific information needs to be altered or even removed, I'm more than willing to hear it. I think, for the moment, though, we should attempt to correct the article instead of deleting it outright. Keirberos 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability must be established through independent media sources, not content from the sites or other sites involved in this promotion. Anyone can open up a blog and say anything - hence, they're not notable Corpx 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The vast majority of the "references" in use are self-referential or from blogs or otherwise unreliable sources. The few remaining that might be classified as reliable only give this ARG a trivial, incidental mention. This "game" is something of a new phenomenon, and has yet to establish notability. Perhaps someone can userfy the content for future recreation should notability be achieved - but not yet. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just clarification... Userfy? Keirberos 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And, as a note, 'vast majority'? The one site that has the most references is indeed a blog, but it's a verified, in-game, source. In context, it is quite reliable, more reliable than a secondary site recording the same information. I believe there are only two other blogs noted as recordings of information about the site; the others are merely noted as affiliates. Keirberos 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy generally means to copy the text and put it in the userspace somewhere, for example, creating a page titled User:Keirberos/Ethan Haas Was Right and putting the text there. As for the sources - they may be true and verifiable, but they are primary sources. That is acceptable for factual information but they cannot be used to establish notability. Read the guidelines at WP:N, WP:RS and WP:ATT for more detail on why. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Cloverfield (which is better sourced to boot). Insufficient grounds for a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I considered that option, but figured it was problematic owing to the fact that the official word is that the items are not related. I'd not have a real problem with a redirect, anyway, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with Arkyan. This page originally redirected to Cloverfield; thus far, however, the only evidence either way has suggested the two aren't related. I've another proposal though— would any of you believe that this article could warrant being moved to Wikinformation or a seperate Wikia? Keirberos 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That'd depend on the policies of the wiki in question. As long as our licensing is compatible with theirs (ie. they accept GDFL contributions) and this article falls within the inclusion guidelines of said wiki then I have absolutely no problem with such a thing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable game with no good reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has cited sources and is well-written. Justin Bacon 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep what's the point of deleting this now and then undelete it later when the movie is released? It's just waste of time.  Grue  21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Why would we undelete this later? --- RockMFR 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Keep". What is the point of having an internet encyclopedia whereby users can post information on various topics, if you're going to ignore well written topics that address current (and subsequently past) internet or real world fads or viral marketing campaigns? The rules for Wikipedia regarding sources do not make any sense when dealing with such things as viral marketing campaigns since the only sources available for such things are the campaigns themselves. This current internet phenomenon is garnering huge interest from scores of people, why remove well written and relevant information on it? Doing so would be the opposite of what Wikipedia should be all about. [[User:Dpressen 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]]
  • There is no indication whatsoever that this game will become a fad. It is merely a topic of the week, and there is no significant coverage provided by independent, secondary sources to shape this game's real-world context, and thus, notability. This article is self-written and basically lists movie blogs and minor movie sites that have covered it, while there are no major sites that have covered it in a non-trivial manner. It is simply a knee-jerk reaction to create an article on a temporary phenomenon -- Wikipedia is not a news repository. Think of it this way -- based on the information available to us, would this article be relevant ten years from now? Does not appear to be. If its real-world context is the film itself, and cited sources at Cloverfield indicate that there's no relation, then the film-based game should be mentioned in the film article and not in explicit fancruftish detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but trim the heck out of this; write it as an encyclopedia article, appropriate for inclusion in the film's article when it comes out. This is way too long, and crufty. --Haemo 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources. Cruft-filled, speculation-filled... no reason to believe a film which may or mayn't be connected with this game will increase its notability upon release because there's no evidence of that. GassyGuy 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep To say this is non-notable is farcical. There are pages on You Tube discussing it, multiple websites covering it, and if it's connected to Cloverfield, which i suspect it is, then it's even more notable since that's even warrented national news coverage. It's most certainly a notable, and useful, article to a (now) widely known internet site, and perhaps to a now widely known, if enigmatic, movie. 18-Till-I-Die 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Youtube videos, blogs and others dont count for notability per WP:RS Corpx 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about dogs on skateboards or some fanboy blog, we're talking about serious (and in many cases offical, ie: part of the company producing it) use of blogs and sites like YouTube to spread an official viral campaign, whether it be for the movie in question or some new product, I can't see how, with all the coverage it is getting from film sites, news sites, and the internet populace in general, that people would view it as something that needed to be removed from Wiki. As a matter of fact, all one needs to do is look at the rules under "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", since a website is nothing more than interactive article in many instances, in this case especially, I think it's perfectly within in the rules to cite the official blogs and websites as sources. Dpressen 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources to establish notability must come from independent media sources. Other sites/blogs created by the company to help with this promotion do not count in this case. Corpx 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Keep". This is an interesting article about a current web phenomenon. I believe that it has encyclopedic value in that it chronicles information about the site in a detailed and concise manner. The reliable sources are easy to get to! It all comes off of the site itself. Geez! Allemannster 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it all comes from the site itself, then the site itself isn't notable. There is precedent for deleting this sort of webcruft that does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. GassyGuy 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting usage of the word "consensus". Korny O'Near 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A game that's part of a viral marketing campaign is completely undeserving of its own article. Never mind the fact that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE PRODUCT IS. When someone announces what the product is, the game will make a nice addition to that page. In the meantime, there's nothing about it that merits its own article in an encyclopedia. EvilCouch 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete because it fails WP:WEB in several ways: 1) It has not been reported in a non-trivial manner by any reliable published works, and the websites fail to be reliable because they establish no significant real-world context and just play the puzzles. There is no established, verified background for this game, which may very well be spam -- per sourced information at Cloverfield, a Paramount spokesperson and J. J. Abrams have said that the site does not belong to them. There is the headline of the week and should not warrant an ensure an entire article, especially based on movie blogs and minor movie sites. This being the case, this will suffer from recentism. Wikipedia is not a news repository. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Let's not get messy here. Just leave the article alone. I know of an article that should have been deleted months ago but it still hasn't. This article cites it's resources and is very neat. PERIOD

Astro 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Anybody can nominate an article for deletion. Please do the community a service and follow the procedures at WP:AfD to take care of the one you reference. GassyGuy 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Heavily Trim. The notability of this ARG alone is infinitesimal. When cited with other articles (about the Cloverfield association, now probably proven as false), it is fairly noteworthy, at best, and only in so much as it keeps others from reintroducing information to it without checking sources. Since it is not verified if it's related to The Class, Cloverfield, or some other game or product, it does not deserve extrapolation nor merging with another article.
The 2nd paragraph, along with the content sections Characters, Puzzles, Videos, Divinus, and a great deal of Trivia and References are all extraneous. Even then, there is a good argument for recentism, but it would be nice to have something to clear up the confusion and lead people away from wikipedia when pursuing EHWR content. Yookaloco 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong DELETE - Not only is this WP:Fancruft, it has nothing to do with the movie that has made this site supposedly "notable". Just more garbage trying to jump on a bandwagon. -- 69.177.230.230 05:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you know something the rest of us don't? I doubt it, so therefore, your mention of "garbage" and "bandwagons" is potentially irrelevant at best.UntilMoraleImproves 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article would have never been created if it hadn't been (falsely) associated with Cloverfield. ShadowUltra 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This game has been mentioned in multiple notable news sources, including G4's The Feed, Time-Warner's entertainment news, and others. It therefore meets the notability requirements set by WP:WEB. It does need editing, though. 67.186.34.123 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article reflects on a timely topic, of interest to the general readership of Wiki. In addition, it is well researched and written. MWShort 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If this does have something to do with Cloverfield, it will need to be re-created anyway. Even if it's not, it is a tie back to the Cloverfield hype pre movie release.UntilMoraleImproves 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unnotable fancruft. Even if it were connected to the movie (or any other movie), it still wouldn't deserve a page of its own. It's a marketing website, people. It's not a worthy topic for an encyclopedia. Korny O'Near 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you back up your statements with any kind of proof?UntilMoraleImproves 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Proof of what? That it's a marketing website? If it's not, then it's just a website with games on it, which would make it even less notable - there's only about 100,000 of those out there on the web. Korny O'Near 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And what if it turns out to actually have a purpose such as promoting the "Cloverfield" movie? Do we then re-create the article when we could have just left it alone in the first place?UntilMoraleImproves 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We cant keep articles just hoping that notability will be established sometime in the future. Corpx 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So what reason do you have to say that this is not notable right now?UntilMoraleImproves 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As Corpx said before, many of the guidelines established on WP:NOTE can be accurately and fairly applied to the situation we are currently having with this article. Yookaloco 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As per my vote, "lack of significant coverage from independent media" Corpx 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. ARGs are uncommon enough as it is, and this one appears to be notable. However, it would probably be best to merge it into a "Marketing" section at Cloverfield. Even if the website isn't related, the hype it generated should be enough to warrant a mention. —Xezbeth 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So which is it, keep or merge? Korny O'Near 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They're pretty much the same thing. Merges do not need AfD approval. —Xezbeth 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this needs to be kept, because this will be something our generation will talk about in the future. This marketing, or whatever it may be will define part of the internet generation we live in. Anyone who is internet savvy at this time will remember and look back at this for how great it truly is. I don't know if I am explaining myself correctly, but does anyone understand what I am saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.35.99 (talk • contribs) — 68.163.35.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I sure hope this does not define any part of the generation we live in! Corpx 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage is not notable, wikipedia is not a game guide, etc. If this IS tied to cloverfield, it can be redirected to that article and any verifiable and encyclopedic information about the site can be included there.--Crossmr 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many game guides on Wikipedia, I used a gameguide from this website a week ago for N64's Perfect Dark. So should that and all other game related articles be deleted as well?
  • Keep It's an interesting website that is worth mentioning even if it has nothing to do with 1-18-08 or Lost.--Pilot expert 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP I am a LOST fan who just learned about Cloverfield and all of the rumors surrounding it. I came HERE to wikipedia to read up a little more on it. I would have been suprised/ANGRY if there was nothing here.--75.61.77.188 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I don't think it has anything to do with Cloverfield, it certainly has with Mindstorm's game Alpha Omega. Look at the corresponding entry unter Trivia and follow the second link to an image comparison. So keep until it's real connection is clear and then merge it either with Cloverfield or Alpha Omega article. - Valeeo 07:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is notable, the source exists, and it's been mentioned in press. --79.65.17.76 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article can be easily fixed, there's no need for deletion. Furthermore, with the popularity of 1-18-08 i believe it would cause dissatification if this article were completely removed. Kycowboyntv 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but fix the hell out of this article. Zarggg 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At least until after August, 1, 2007, when we find out the next phase of the site's development. If it's just a topic of the week, we'll know at that time. If it's part of some on-going film or game development project we'll probably see more clues leading to better data. Think of it like the DaVinci code online event. Dragonranger 15:51, 15 July 2007 (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.