Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EchoNYC

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 redirect to Stacy Horn.

EchoNYC

Apparently non-notable chat forum. Yes, it's been mentioned in the New York Times and the New York News so technically does pass the "multiple independent" bit of WP:N. However, I can't see anything to distinguish this relatively small forum (3000 members) from any other, and there's no encyclopedic content that I can see in the article itself other than a date of founding and name of the founder – none of the "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known" that's required under WP:WEB. – iride scent 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteKeep~~Redirect There is apparently a book about the web :site, but it's written by the owner of Echo. Delete immediately.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You wrote the article. What the hell is going on here? – iride scent 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  So then you want me to Keep it? I'll change my vote back to delete if you want. Let me know.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete I have to adgfree wit Manhattan Samurai. It eappears that hte original author was in error wwhen he or she created this article. The releavent information could be merged into Stacy Horn. Also, please watch the language. Smith Jones (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's a good idea. The article could redirect to a section in Stacy Horn's article. I, myself, have just given up on AfDs. They are too much of a crapshoot.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable despite references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee-lete. Non-notable. Madman (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had speedy-deleted this, but undeleted it on request to permit a discussion here. DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i, the article rcreator, allow this to be delete td and I anm hoping that you guys will allow me to copy and paste this infrmaiton into the Stacy Horn artocle. Smith Jones (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) :D[reply]

Well, redirect. it is definitely a notable bbs/web site in terms of early Internet history, but i'm not interested in early internet history and simply wanted to add some information about it somewhere. so a redirect is perfect.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 17 July 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.