Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)

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 was keep. The article underwent substantial revision from the time it was first nominated for deletion, and now has nearly twenty references, little or no unsourced opinion or original research, and has an encyclopedic tone. It also contains content that better serves the project as a stand-alone article, rather than being merged into Cloverfield. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield (creature)

there is NO information outside of what is seen in the movie, and the movie explains nothing. DurinsBane87 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the forthcoming manga will though. AstroNerdBoy (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, though. If the manga reveals information, it might lead to article creation. But we can't make one with the information we have now, and it's against policy to make one "just in case." DurinsBane87 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, as there are no sources other than the film. Obviously, interviews with producers and the director may yield some information, but the article even notes that those sources have provided "contradictory" information, rendering it at least somewhat unreliable. Though a cleanup issue, the language is speculative, with "perhaps" and "at least" indicating that the facts the article presents are not clear. Unless some authoritative information comes out - and I agree that the subject would be notable in that case - we don't need an article. The film's article seems to cover the bulk of this material well enough. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per WP:HEY, as the article has greatly improved. I'd still like to see more sources, but the version in place is satisfactory. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we can remove the contradictory info if needed and simply use the movie and any other entires in this possible franchise as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CRYSTAL -- you've mentioned that this is a "possible franchise", but we don't know for sure if it will be. At the moment, all we can determine is that this is an entity's singular appearance. It is not the norm to create a stand-alone article for such an entity, especially with all these interpretations. There is sufficient information in the last paragraph at Cloverfield#Production, and that can be expanded if necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. “Original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big D OR--71.97.143.232 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Movie is still new, give the article time to develop. Antichris (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this creature is limited to this singular appearance in one film, the summary style should be followed. The film article Cloverfield is hardly too long, and the creature is discussed at Cloverfield#Production (in real-world context, no less). Information about the creature should grow there, and discussion can take place about branching off when the information is overabundant. It's a knee-jerk reaction to assume at this point that this article is capable of growing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.157.85 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CRYSTAL, this is a textbook case. Further, if this creature was signifigantly notable, the movie would be one valid resource. But according to WP:FICT, it needs others to justify a separate article, and there is no reason to believe any exist. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my comment above. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. Wow, I never would've guessed I'd vote this way, but the quality has seriously improved, and it contains enough content to potential justify the split per WP:SUMMARY. -Verdatum (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because this is one entity in one film. This article is purely original research based on the in-universe information. The film article Cloverfield serves as a far better location for talking about all aspects of the film, including the creature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Son of Kong and as it is a monster from the highest grossing January release film that already has manga, DVD release, and sequel talk. In addition to phenemonal viral marketing and internet speculation concerning the monster and its origins, the montser itself was even spoofed on The Soup this past Friday and thus has notability outside the film. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, we don't create separate articles on entities' singular appearances, and it's no reason why a creature should have its own article outside of the film as opposed to any human character or one-time creature design. In addition, every film has a DVD release which replicates the media and is film-centric, so your point here is moot. Also, the manga will be film-related, not just creature-related, so there's no reason for it to go beyond the boundaries of the film article at this point. Also, talk of a sequel is not set in stone -- to assume that the creature will continue its "career" is flat-out crystal balling. Lastly, being spoofed is not an automatic seal of stand-alone article notability, as the spoof is based on the film's success, not the creature's success, as you pointed out how the film made such a big splash in January. The film article can easily cover the creature in depth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research with no secondary sources, not notable outside the context of the film. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-notable character of a notable movie. Contradictory statements are nothing special or new on Wikipedia, each can be presented seperate and debate noted.--Molobo (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entities do not warrant stand-alone articles when they have singular appearances. There are many "notable" characters that only appear once in "notable" films, and the articles about the films cover them. Per WP:SS, there should be a reason why the creature is recognized of its own accord outside the film. This has not been done -- all the recognition of this creature is based on one film, whose article has sufficient room for detailing the creature with appropriate sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, incorrect. The monster has appeared well befor the movie in ARG, which spawned enourmous internet debate on several webpages, forums, discussion groups, and even TV. --Molobo (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The viral marketing campaign was designed to promote the film, which has the creature in it as a major entity. The campaign was not at all focused on promoting the creature apart from the film. There is no reason to separate the entity from the film at this point with only one major appearance. It cannot be assumed to be on the scale of Godzilla or King Kong at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself the monster appeared outside the movie in various media. Thus the claim that it appears only in the movie is incorrect.--Molobo (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The media it appears in outside the movie is not independent from the movie. This is explicitly described in WP:FICT which is a logical extension of WP:N. You could make the same argument of "No, it was in the movie and the commercial for the movie, that's two separate sources!!" I'm afraid I don't buy it. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it only appears in the film. I said this: ...all the recognition of this creature is based on one film. The creature only appears in conjunction with the marketing for the film and the film itself and cannot be determined as notable outside of that realm. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 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) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there "need" to be a separate page? This creature is known because of its one appearance in Cloverfield. Its appearance was designed for the film in question, and any talk of its continued "career" is not set in stone. After regulation, this article would be a mere stub due to the lack of any real-world context, and any useful content would fit in the film article, which discusses all aspects of the film, including the creature itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; any info about the monster can be placed on the movie's page,--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~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) 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article has improved greatly since the beginning of AFD and should be kept in the Cloverfield article. Not notable enough to retain it's own article, however. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant component of the viral advertising campaign for the movie centered on the mystery of the monster and its appearance. Arguably, the monster page is more significant than the original entry. Certainly, it is notable as a significant point of pop-culture, anticipation and resolution, independently from the movie. I would suggest the article include some of the pre-movie speculations as to the monster's nature (with appropriate citations) to flesh it out and give it a broader scope. Regardless, the article should remain.--Eric Burns (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign was focused on the film, which happens to include the creature. The campaign was not solely creature-focused at all. There were fake MySpace profiles of characters from the film, so this goes to show that this does not mean the creature gets separate notability. You are wrong to say that the creature can be recognized independently from the film; it is because of the film and its marketing that this creature is known. There is no independent establishment of its notability. Speculation of the creature pre-release is entwined with the nature of the film itself, as you can read at Cloverfield#Pre-release plot speculation. There is no distinction that can be made here, and the creature is not notable outside of the film to warrant a separate article. All information about this creature can be covered in the film article, which is the primary host of this entity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about any of the countless other giant monsters that only appeared in one film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.216.219 (talk • contribs) 15:50, January 21, 2008
That would be an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and is not good rationale. QuasiAbstract (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOR, nothing salvable to merge. Secret ^account 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no reason for this article to exist. The creature is discussed at the main Cloverfield page in all its real-world glory. If anything needs adding to what exists there, the article is still short enough that it can be. Only when that article becomes too big or the creature becomes notable in of itself will a separate article be required. Fans need to start to understand that individual articles do not best serve the interests of these properties. It's as though if something doesn't have its own article, it's not "important", but Wikipedia isn't a pissing contest. It's far better for the information on the creature to be within a larger article in order to give it some context and actually help readers to understand the thing better. After all, that's what we're supposed to be doing here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, real-world context is insufficient to support a separate article at this time. Powers ^T 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm very sure this monster will reappear in comics, novels and maybe sequel films, but remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. The article can be recreated if the monster becomes famous beyond that viral advertising experiment. Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with all the other guys who want to keep this article. It maybe just a explanation but it is better than just deleating like retards without explaining anything about the monster. Hell, I didn't see the movie and the monster and this article is useful for me and I bet a lot of people too because it explains what the creature looks like and the other creatures too. So don't deleate because of a stupid idea because it doesn't contain any citations, thats a couple of bull. It can still be useful if you don't deleate it. Johnny542 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the article, make sure you say so and bold the word. In addition, please discuss the merits of this article and refrain from calling opposing editors "retards". The film article Cloverfield has sufficient content about all aspects of the film, including the creature. In the present article, there are solely interpretations by editors who make scientific assertions about a fictional creature. This film's creature is discussed and cited on the film article, as the creature is known because of this film and its marketing, not outside of it at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I got a little carried away but I do still want the Cloverfield creature article still there. Johnny542 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is possible to create an article on this creature from reliable sources indicating how the creature seen in the movie was created and its impact on popular culture. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cloverfield; it's a far more organized and productive way to convey the known information on the creature. --216.16.236.2 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that is, most information of note is already contained within the article, and a separate section containing a simple description of the creature would be unnecessary. Wikipedia's focus is primarily concerned with presenting encyclopedic, real-world information. Steve ^{T • C} 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The monster is only seen in one movie; true. But the monster is the centerpiece of the movie; it needs to have a unified description; especially with a complex situation such as the smaller creatures and it's rather unique appearance and abilities. Trying to merge the monster in with the movie article is messy, and makes the whole thing longer than it needs to be without the clarity of distinct articles. K!netic (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, if the Cloverfield article was too big. It isn't, and doesn't even come close. I might agree, if the article was sufficiently full of real-world context. It isn't, and doesn't even come close. Most information of note about the creature is already within the main article; if there's something missing, please feel free to add it. A simple description doesn't cut it; if you really want that depth of speculation about the creature, there are plenty of places where one can go for that. Steve ^{T • C} 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Bstone (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that this is not a vote. Your presenting an argument consisting solely of "notable" requires explanation if it is to be considered by the closing admin. Otherwise, it will be disregarded. Steve ^{T • C} 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the lacking of sources is notable, the release is quite recent and is still receiving promotion. New information could, in theory, happen any day now. It also covers something that is not talked significantly about in the main article and is a large subject of a major film release. Many will come looking, and some will improve the article. That's how this is supposed to work, right?Sokmonkey792 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Sokmonkey792 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You ought to take a look at Cloverfield, which already houses information about the creature and other elements of the film. This article was spun off unnecessarily because it cannot be assumed that the Cloverfield creature is going to be notable enough outside of its singular appearance on the level of Godzilla or King Kong. The creature is known because of the film, and there is nothing that can be added here that would be verifiable. It's all been interpretation and original research. The film article is a better place to read about the creature, as it is the central hub of all this information. The creature is not evidenced at this point to be recognized apart from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should not assume that new information could happen any day now. QuasiAbstract (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sorry, but the focus of this movie won't be the creature, it'll be the Blair Witch/Godzilla-ness of it. Cool monster, I will admit, but nothing that two sentences couldn't sum up. Naturally, if it had sources it'd be fine, but it doesn't, and I doubt it will. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. Happy to have been proven wrong. It's a much better article than it was. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The movie explains nothing that is concrete about the monster. If a creature isn't in multiple forms of media, it really doesn't deserve an article. The comparable creature, Godzilla, is in so many movies and video games and referenced in so much pop culture that it deserves an article. But, the unnamed monster in Cloverfield does not. Golden Fox (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The monster has been the subject of secondary sources (I know because I've read some). They're not used here, but that's due to poor article quality and not lack of notability. The article was recently created and still needs to be improved, so deletion is entirely too early to consider at this point. Give people a chance to add references and assert notability! Buspar (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why can't such additions you have in mind be added to the main Cloverfield article? There's no reason for a separate article; indeed, the interests of the reader will be better served by having the information there, where it can be given proper context. Steve ^{T • C} 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where a particular character of a fictional universe receives coverage from multiple secondary sources, it is normal to split it off into its own article. The other article is primarily about the movie, including its synopsis, production, and reviews, not facts specifically about the monster from the production notes, interviews, etc. For example, the monster will be in the manga series; background material from that manga should not go in the movie article, but can go in a separate monster article. The key is that a split off like this has to be supported by secondary sources, which do exist, even though they haven't been added yet. Buspar (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why the the main Cloverfield article can't contain "facts specifically about the monster from the production notes, interviews, etc." Indeed, it already does to a certain extent. Notability is not inherited; the secondary source coverage of the Cloverfield creature is entirely due to its appearance in the film. More importantly, the interests of the reader will surely be better served by having all the information he or she is after in one place. Only when the main article gets too large should we consider spinning certain sections off. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buspar, if you know of such sources, please provide whatever information you have about them. So far, all I've heard of is this proposed manga, which is unsufficient due to WP:CRYSTAL. If I could be shown reliable independent resources that establish the creature outside of the film, then I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the manga as an example of the sort of information that wouldn't go in the movie article while still going in the creature article. I'm currently trying to find the sources I mentioned, though I think they were offline, which is going to make it a little harder. That's why submitting an AfD for an article so soon after its creation is a bad idea - this article could well be deleted before the sources can even be found! Buspar (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The manga is featured within the movie article, so it would make sense to include the creature's manga information within the movie article as well. At least until it becomes more notable. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that secondary sources discussing the creature will not cut the mustard alone. What is required are reliable secondary sources which discuss and analyse the creature independently of the film. Even then, the interests of the reader may better be served by including that information in the main Cloverfield article, until such time as it becomes too large. Steve ^{T • C} 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You "think" they were offline? please give more detail (any detail) so we can help (oh, and at about that point, such discussion should probably move back to the talk page, since it's about improving the article, not discussion of deletion). In the case of WP:FICT articles, these independent reliable resources should be in place on the very first edit. Otherwise, notability is not established outside the main entity, and unless it has been created for reasons of WP:SIZE (which is not the case here), then the article need not exist. If such resources are later uncovered (or created), the article can be recreated, and probably in a better state than this mass of Original Research, WP:PLOT, and biological suppositions. -Verdatum (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Due to the nature of the movie little was revealed about the creature in sources not constituting original research. What's not original research can fit into the context of the main Cloverfield article. With future movies probable due to the high-grossing nature and plot style of this film, I'm open to a page on the monster being recreated some time in the future, but for now I say delete. DJBullfish (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone can add reliable secondary source support before the close of the Afd, that would contribute immensely in a positive light to the article, probably justifying it's continued inclusion. DJBullfish (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could include this at the film article Cloverfield. The article is well-sourced and serves as an appropriate host for all Cloverfield-related elements, including the Cloverfield creature itself. Just look at Cloverfield#Creature design. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of Erik's responses to the keep votes... I hope people are reading them. This is not a dicussion of notability, the monster passes that. The natural process should be to start including a monster section in the Cloverfield page, ONLY after citable sources arise. We aren't even at that point. If the amount of citable info regarding the monster increases to a large point, then maybe it will need to be expanded and given it's own article. Like I said, we aren't even close to this. Gwynand (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a paragraph focused on the design of the creature at the Production section of Cloverfield, so I've subsectioned that section to have that paragraph fall under Creature design for the sake of clarity. In addition, since Hasbro is taking advantage of the box office performance of the film with its new monster toy, I've incorporated that information in the Merchandise subsection under Marketing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We simply don't have enough factual basis to give this thing an entire article yet. Keep it as a section of the movie page for now, then, as more clear background becomes available, we can put something together. Dhenson314 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhenson314 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anything in this article at this point is nothing more than orginal research. Tabor (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first chapter of the manga has already been released, so this creature stars in two separate media, meaning his background info shouldn't all go into the film article. Also, I notice that secondary sources are already starting to be added, with some of the above users pledging more. This is a good basis for keep. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first chapter was covered by Comic Book Resources, but it reveals nothing new about the creature. CBR even asks, "How this exactly connects to the Cloverfield movie is unclear. Is this a prequel? A continuation of the film? Some other side-story that fleshes out the Tagruato story? Those questions remain unanswered at the moment." The manga could be just as relevant to the creature and the film as the viral tie-ins like Slusho! were, which was very minimal. Nothing is determinable at this point aside from attempts at crystal balling, and in addition, mention of the manga and the toy figure already rest comfortably at Cloverfield. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really any speculation there on the relationship of the movie and manga: the manga is a prequel. Kadokawa advertised it as such (the translation you cited only dealt with the comic, not the associated ads).[1] [2] 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While important and notable, as well as the forthcoming manga promising to delve into the backstory, I think this should stick around. But if this manga is not really answering anything, I say we cut this. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:OR. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, crap, etc. If there are secondary sources, they should be used to establish notability first and foremost. Given that the creature itself is a derivative fictional element which wields no cultural influence, I doubt any case for establishing notability could be made now. Specifically, cruft and viral advertisements are not notable by virtue of fan interest alone (we defer to WP:RS). Maybe in a few years, after more movies, a developed media franchise, or significant published commentary there will be a solid basis for an article on the subject. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All information in the article is simply extrapolated from either the film or marketing of the film. (Crystal Ball applies to that). And what's left appears to simply be a physical description of the creature, which can be fit into the main article easily. There's nowhere near enough outside information to justify this article. Ourai ^тʃ_с 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep as per UltraExactZZ (WP:HEY). Significant improvements have been made, with quite a few externals. Ourai ^тʃ_с 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, at least until the mangas come out. I do find it funny though that everyone here is so doubtful about the future popularity of the monster; it will become America's Godzilla, wait and see. Ours18 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is doubtful of the possibility of future popularity, but there it is again...future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not include information on the basis that that something will become popular. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the stuff can be found in the plot of Cloverfield and the stuff that isn't is O.R. -ScotchMB (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the creature is simply an entity from the film which does not warrant its own page, but which deserves mention in the film's Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssaunders (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I wouldn't have thought there would be enough before reading the article, but it certainly seems like there's plenty now to justify the articles current existence, and i'm sure there will be more in the future.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these details can be centralized at the film article Cloverfield. It cannot be assumed that the monster will have a "career" after this film. There's no need to be redundant in an article about one character from one film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, even without appearing elsewhere, I think that the information in this article, at the time i made the original comment, warranted its own seperate article, and that adding it to the movie's article would have made that article unweildy. Since then, the article has been greatly expanded. There is certainly plenty of real world information out there, as shown by the numerous varied citations, to justify having an article for the monster seperate from the movie.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Original research about a monster from a stand-alone movie. • Supāsaru 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to point out that this article is also written completely in-universe, which is discouraged in Wikipedia. • Supāsaru 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge: The article has improved greatly in the past few days, but I believe the information would fit better in the Cloverfield article. Whatever useful information should be moved there. • Supāsaru 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy to find sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of which is already covered on the film article. Why can the creature not be detailed there? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge move it and clean it up into the page about the movie. There should only be pages created for these characters when there's a long running series available and on hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge until the monster has become notable enough (that may happen with a successful sequel), it does not warrant its own page, however, the monster is notable within the context of the movie itself and as such information on it should be preserved. Overmage (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason the creature needs his own article. Ridernyc (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article Cloverfield Monster, which contains even more original research than this present article undergoing deletion, is the same topic. So depending on the outcome of the AFD, this article should be addressed -- deleted, hist-merged, or whatever else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now I already redirect Cloverfield Monster to Cloverfield. Redirect this the same; better to have one killer, "monster" article than a bunch of small crappy ones. Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the film. There's not much of an article right now. 76.65.248.50 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I also suggest that, if this survives, it should be renamed Monster (Cloverfield) or Clover (monster), as the first is a more appropriate, neutral name, while the second is the one the creators, including Abrams, use to describe it. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This whole article is original research, hearsay, and fanboy speculation. "" Get rid of it before it gets any worse. "This article been added to Fictional characters with mental illness. I'd like to point out that separation anxiety is, to quote Psychology Today's Diagnosis Dictionary, "a normal stage in an infant's development", which is not quite the same thing as separation anxiety disorder, a bona fide mental/behavioural problem. --Diagonal P. (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)" Are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springtimeofhisvoodoo (talk • contribs)
Merge I think that for now we should merge, but with a merge we should make the movie page a half and half thing. Or we could create a characters of cloverfield page and the monster can be on that. It can include Beth and Rob etc.--Baitt (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's a good article in its own right, but doesn't need a whole page. Can be merged to a section of the main Cloverfield article. -- Silva Storm —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article in its present form seems to be a rehash of the main Cloverfield article. The main Cloverfield article deserves a section dedicated to the mysterious monster. That's where we merge. --Tocino 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge Q ^{T C} 10:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Only relevant information from this article should be taken and merged with Cloverfield. Information such as Concept, Creation, Design and Reception. The rest is petiless trash Taipan198 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of useful info on this creature now so deleating it would be pointless. JUst either keep it or try to merge it with the Cloverfield article. Johnny542 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a keep or merge recommendation, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a Keep. Johnny542 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, plenty of info to support an independent article. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Everyone I know who saw this movie is looking for information about the creature, mostly its origen. This artical deserves its own entry because while there are no cloverfield 2 sequals garunteed, there is enough debate and mystery around the creature that people very much want to know where it came from and where it went. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.244.82 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -Supergodzilla^20|90 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, this is not a vote, and explanations are needed for the admin to make a decision. Otherwise, un-clarified comments will be disregarded. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this page only because I wanted more information on the creature. I think it exists outside of the movie, seeing as how there were things in all sorts of media forms about the creature, and there will be a toy of the creature. I've seen pages about Gandalf and other characters. Why not the main star that obviously caused quite a buzz? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just read the article, and if all the information in the current version is true, it is a great way to get an idea of the creature, espcially if one hasn't seen the movie yet, like myself. I am debating with myself though, if I might soon change my opinion to a merge with the movie's article, because I belive such a case like this would require a description of the creature with the movie it's in, but I worry about if the article would then be too long, and over-emphasize the creature, rather than emphasizing the movie like it's supposed to. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character of a notable movie. The content is encyclopedic, and it has a multitude of sources. Certainly an article like this belongs in Wikipedia. --Dlugar (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough information about the creature. Nothing here that isn't said on the main Cloverfield page. Maybe after the Manga and the inevitable sequel there will be a bit more information to warrent it's own page. -Gwandoya (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now appears to be well sourced. Creature is also the main antagonist of a notable movie. --Cyrus Andiron 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyrus Andiron. As the main bad guy of a clearly notable movie, it's notable. Issues of sourcing have since been addressed, so there is no rational for deleting this. Xihr (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on some of the reasoning above, no article should ever be created unless it's already not needed. Give the article a chance, for crying out loud. I'm also suspicious of those who feel they must comment on every "keep" vote to reiterate their argument(s) against it. Plus I agree with all of the other keep votes; they said it far better than I. Joe Sewell (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those who keep commenting on other's recommendations, are doing so because this is not a vote and as such, some keep giving the same reasons to keep the article, reasons that have refuted. Saying that the article is notable does not make it so. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I assume you're referring to me. FYI, I implemented the cleaned-up version of the article using a lot of redundant content from the film article, see Talk:Cloverfield (creature)#Revision. And responding is essential in AFD because this is not a vote, but a discussion. In responding, one can refute quite a few of the other's keep/delete recommendations if there is a basis for it. Most of the arguments are the same points presented in different form, so there are the same responses presented in different form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article fits all the criterion for WP:FICT and the revision of that guideline. It also seems with the manga and inevitable movie sequel(s), information will only make this article more notable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "It seems" means it's not evidenced yet. We can't crystal ball that the article will become more notable. With that being the case, since the creature is covered from its appearance in the film, why can details not go on the film article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Even though not much is known about the creature right now, it still deserves its own article, or at least this information should be merged into the article for the movie. Gamer am I (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, Definitely original research, not enough information for a whole article, even if we did have all the facts. It's not like the central character in a series or such, it's one character in one movie. Maybe after a sequel or two. There is so little information on this creature that it can easily fit in the movie's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and that's a heck of an improvement since the AfD template was added. I definitely understand the nom's original concerns, but the article has improved a great deal and seems to be going in a much better direction. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because the monster does not exist outside of the movie at this time. 68.190.18.22 (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The information about the creature and the logic behind its design is clearly notable enough. Cloverfield, and in particular the creature, is one of the talking points of the horror/scifi genre season. The only question in my mind is whether or not to merge. I vote "keep" (i.e. not merge) because the volume of material (not all of it is in the article yet) would make the main article too large and disjointed if merged. Annamonckton (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why can the information about its design not go to Cloverfield#Creature design? I put together the "Critical analysis" section talking about the creature, and believe me, the creature was not the highlight of many reviews. A lot of reviewers only mention the creature in passing and focused on the characters and the camera style used and the pacing of the film. It's absurd to imply that the creature has a "future", since we have no real indication of its presence in the manga and no certainty about sequels. This is one entity from one film, and we don't go around creating independent articles on these entities because the film is its entire background. In addition, the article is only 43 KB in size, and considering that much of the content is redundant (with the exception of creature-specific comments that I found from reviewers), it would not be large as you say. It would not be disjointed, either -- it's the creature from the film, so how would there not be a place for it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with the movie article. Not seeing anything here that isn't there already, and though I'd like to think this creature might be in a franchise, we can't make that guess. Not seeing the creature as a pop culture icon anyway, only in the movie itself. 70.178.9.23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my first impulse was to !vote delete, but looking at the article, it's a well-cited piece that does not simply focus on plot elements and asserts the notability of the character outside of the movie it appears in. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as rewritten (WP:HEY). Even Hasbro understands the importance, not to mention marketability, of this central character. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite; substantially improved from when the AfD was created. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks much better than before.- Just Phil 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, looks a good article now. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, great article, the creature needs some extra explaining. _BAMBINN ^!! 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.67.194 (talk) [reply]
Keep as a well-sourced encyclopedic entry about a notable fictional character. Article is nothing like it was when it was first nominated. It just needed some time to be improved, but the gun was jumped on the issue. --Czj (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name "Cloverfield" refers to the movie, the unique marketing efforts, and the monster itself. The monster requires its own well-sourced article and I can only see this entry improving. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure with in time this article can be made better if this many people say they want to keep it. Supergodzilla^20|90 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the monster is a notable part of the movie, to draw an analogue, there are seperate articles for godzilla the movie and godzilla the creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingbingma (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the monster is distinct from the movie. 209.19.12.41 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of independent sources from interviews by those involved in the production. -- Vary | Talk 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, normally I would say Merge but this is too long to merge so I say keep it. After all this creature was in a big hit movie.--Cra sh U nderride 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)

Cloverfield (creature)

Navigation menu

Search