Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I've moved the comments related to AFD type discussion from Talk:Cloverfield_(creature) here. People were constantly overlooking repeated requests to visit the AFD instead of innapropriate extending the discussion there. I leave it to the closing admin as to if this content should be considered. -Verdatum (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Instructions

Please note that while this talk page is a useful place for discussion of the proposed deletion of the article, "votes" to keep or to delete the article should be placed at the bottom of the main page, here. Start a new line indicating your vote beginning with a star (*) followed by either "Keep" or "Delete" in a bold font (place three apostrophes (''') at both sides of the word) before explaining by your reasons. Remember to sign your comment using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Steve T • C 10:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Comments

Like many of the other posters, i vote that it be kept. I've read that JJ Abrems plans to bring out a series(i cant remember if its a comic or cartoon) on the origens of the creature which will aid the construction of this article further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.117.127 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball and just because a someone attached to the movie has expressed interest in making a franchise, does not mean it will happen and does not establish notabliity. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature). Thank you. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This movie is the possible beginning of a franchise, there may soon be more information and possible more creatures to add to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Article. Mainly because as time goes on the more information about the creature will come out and this article will be useful.

Also I do not see why can't the Film = a source of information as other film related articles do the same thing.

I agree, there are articles about Godzilla and King Kong, there should be an article like this about the cloverfield monster, the sequel might even explore the creatures origins even further, this article should not be deleted

Keep the article. There at least needs to be a page dedicated to the Cloverfield monster, explaining at least in visual what it appears to look like in comparison to existing earth creatures (Since we have nothing concrete to go on that explains what exactly it is in detail), and to reveal other possible information pertaining to the monster from the viral tie-ins. Regulate fan speculation based on wild and original imagination, sure. But the Cloverfield creature is as essential as note-worthy as the movie itself, since the movie is about the creature. Plus, it would be more organized if the Cloverfield creature had it's own seperate article away from the main Cloverfield film article, if there's ever going to be a mention on the monster itself anywhere on Wikipedia. SouthernStang93 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The creature hasn't established notability outside this film, so why should it get its own stand-alone article? The creature is known because it was in this one film, and the film article has room to cover it. As this article stands, it would be the smallest of the stubs since the large part of the content is based on interpretations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete article. Everything in it is in the movie article. If there will be more movies, or canonized material, then bring the guy back, but like Erik said, it's not very notable at this time. Wikipedia will not end tomorrow.QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking to participate in the AFD for this article, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature). Saying "Delete" here doesn't register. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Godzilla has been around for what, 50 years? Longer, I think. You could find tons of information regarding it from third parties. NO ONE knows anything about the Cloverfield monster. Please read these next few sentences!
  • We CANNOT have an article that is just a description of the monster.
  • NO article can have information that is added by people putting 2+2 together on their own. That's called Original Research, and is forbidden on wikipedia.
  • We CANNOT have an article because more information MIGHT become available. If more information surfaces, we can recreate the article. it would be a very simple process.
  • All these above bullets are wikipedia's POLICIES. They aren't opinions or anything like that. It's plain policy. Please understand this. DurinsBane87 (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article should stay

---I agree, there are articles about Godzilla and King Kong, there should be an article like this about the cloverfield monster, the sequel might even explore the creatures origins even further, this article should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.180.78 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article shouldn't be deleted

I feel that it wouldn't be right at all to delete this article. J.J Abrams has already said this is going to be a franchise so we mine as well make a page for this. That way, as we get more info we can just add it to this page instead of having to create an entirely new page. Son of Kong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of Kong (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But we don't know if this will be a franchise, and we cannot crystal ball about it. Superman and Batman were much more established franchises, and they experienced long hiatus. Not to mention the JLA film adaptation is on similar hiatus. Just because something is popular does not ensure that the popularity is guaranteed to go beyond its origin. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted, the entire artcle is specualtion and vague descriptions from eye-witness accounts. MindWraith (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I too feel that this Article shouldn't be deleted. More info and pic !--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad both, and all of you feel that way...or any way. But expressing your opinion on this page will do little to help this. When posting to a talk page, it's a good idea to take the time to read the talk page. Doing so would reveal (many times over) that for your input to be considered, it should be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature). This procedure is standard practice on Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's end this stupid deletion thing no one wants the page to go.--Mugatu3333 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)