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

message: I must say that it troubles me to learn that wikipedia, an online encyclopedia (defined: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.), is willing to delete factual information. 
I don't understand why an article can not be created by a user using A PRIMARY SOURCE (the website itself). Instead the website was deleted because there was a lack of media attention and secondary sources. Many people, including myself, come to wikipedia thinking I am ensured information on a subject (in this case Eon8) and instead find the article deleted. I find it horriblly wrong and find myself sick to my stomach that any information, no matter how trivial it may seem, can be barred and blocked from public sight.
I viewed the Eon8 article before it was deleted, and I saw nothing inappropriate about it. I remember there was quotes around quotations,credit was given to original sources and theories and conjectures were marked as such. There was no profanity, nor was there any attempt at marketing anything, just simple information on the issue. 
I know I found this deletion out too late and there is no longer 'an issue' with this article's deletion and will most likely remain deleted. Just listing my grievences 
---Warman17 08:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: This must stay here, of course, it was great, why you guys won't just accept it. Twats.
----
--201.217.144.239 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongly Keep 

message: This scheme/clever apocalypse trick and or prediction seems interesting as I recently discovered this whole countdown of sorts, making it interesting to know about such a chaotic event and what happenened in the process, as a result of this chaotic event. 24.188.203.181 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: Hope someone notices this, I'm a long time lurker AND I've had a few accounts in the past. If allowed, here's my vote:
*Keep. I may be biased as a member of Something Awful (it was quite big there), but hell, this even got on to Ebaums World's forums and a forum I used to be active in (they don't notice most internet stuff). I think it's notable enough and a decent article - could use a little clean up though.  12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: keep, by my last count. Joeyramoney 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good thing AFD is not a vote then. Kotepho 18:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this will be put in deletion review, good sources were starting to pop up. Lapinmies 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should indeed be kept in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I especially love the poorly-concocted blanket flame towards those who were in favor of keeping.  VERY classy, Proto.  Gerk 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  72-39 

message: :I think not the result appears to be no consensus.Geni 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Closing Comments 

message: this is fucked up. dposse 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow.