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)[reply]

Ethan Haas Was Right

[edit]
Ethan Haas Was Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Youtube videos, blogs and others dont count for notability per WP:RS Corpx 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Astro 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you back up your statements with any kind of proof?UntilMoraleImproves 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So what reason do you have to say that this is not notable right now?UntilMoraleImproves 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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?
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.
More