Deletion of Eon8 (2nd nomination)

Comment: per #A8|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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:POINT)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see ). Also fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:WEB)

Comment: 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 '''. 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 ''' 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOR)

Comment: WP:VER  based on  which are zilch. I think it's sad that people would vote their feelings over policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: still fails . Are there any |reputable sources (not blogs or forums) where this website has been mentioned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: This article now contains a copyright violation, and I suspect a serious violation of . I have changed my argument accordingly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: How is Slashdot not a reliable source, when  ''itself cites it as a source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: interesting experiment, but does not meet  or appear to be a notable internet phenomemon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as eon8 is now slashdotted (which fulfills  #3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: 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  a democracy. Please someone give evidence as to how this meets  or more specifically . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:WEB||WP:notability)

Comment: fails notability, only recieved one news hit via googlehttp://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=eon8&btnG=Search+News. The whole thing is unverifiable/uncyclopedic and appears to fail , per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per Motorand Thatcher 131 because ,  and  are policy while  is not (and this wouldn't meet 's "multiple non-trivial published works" requirement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:MEME)

Comment: as failing . Viral marketing is not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: Does not assert notability per ! YTMND, 4Chan and the Something Awful forums do not equate to encyclopedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Trivially fails . Only mention of any notability is Slashdot, and a Slashdot mention does not an article make
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)