Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Conveys an Emotion


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Conveys an Emotion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Some humor web site. It had been around since 1998 and is defunct since 2004. Was tagged with a speedy deletion tag, but I figured since there were lots of editors and the article has existed for almost a year (and, 1998 is moderately old for a website) I should move this to AfD because with a wider audience, someone may be able to clarify. Mango juice talk 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a pretty notable website. --Candy-Panda 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling. But could you tell us why?  And back it up with a source?  Mango juice talk 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a "notable" website that hasn't been updated since 2004 with no refrences or sources. --Tainter 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. As for not updated... once notable always notable so if it was notable in 04 it still is now. Alf photoman 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and work in those quotes Alf photoman 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: some possible sources. No vote — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, there we go. This was nominated for a Webby award in 2003 in the Humor category.  There were 5 nominees; the others were Theonion.com (winner), Get Your War On, Odd Todd, and Whitehouse.org.  This is probably the most obscure of the 5, but that's a pretty impressive group.  There are loads of categories of Webby awards, but the humor one has got to be one of the most competitive, so I think this getting a nomination is impressive.  And I verified it: look in the humor section.  Will add to article.  Keep. Mango juice talk 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't get. I see you changed your vote based on a nomination, but since when did nominations count for anything?? Ohconfucius 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fellow nominees in this case are quite remarkable. To be counted among them is significant, much more so than nominations for other kinds of awards.  In my opinion, anyway.  Mango juice talk 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were the original nominator and you've changed your mind can't you just post that you withdraw the nomination and this will all be over? Plymouths 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, no, since there has been at least one delete vote that hasn't been retracted. Mango juice talk 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If all of those sources are real (most of them seem to be too old for the links to work so I can't verify) then it seems to me like it would definitely count as notable. So I vote keep. Plymouths 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing. JuJube 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is ridiculous. I petitioned to have this undeleted less than a month ago, and used that exact page of awards as my justification. I then added the template and referenced it in the edit summary. Didn't you check the history, or at least look around the site a bit, before running this AfD? --90.240.34.177 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to get agitated. The speedy deletion was reversed, and the article may yet be rescued from here. AfD is a healthy process. The article would be greatly improved by citing sources. The awards page is well and good, but the sources have to be mentioned in the article itself, and preferably verified by someone who has full-text access to the various periodicals. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Webby, this alone suggests a keep &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Webby. The article talk page should list previous deletion discussions so this doesn't come up time and again. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above, the Webby merits a keep RememberMe? 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.