Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:07, 10 June 2024

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to New York. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|New York|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New York. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York/archive

Purge page cache

watch

New York

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

NYPD Cricket League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC/WP:OFFCRIC. Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago. No WP:LASTING. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and New York. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Sources 3,4 and 6 are perfectly acceptable, with coverage at home and in Australia. Notability is not temporary, but the article does need updating. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep This one looks to pass WP:GNG with sourcing in the article and more being found in a simple search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, this article seems to pass WP:GNG and has adequate sourcing. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Some sources are weak, but the article passes WP:GNG. Waqar💬 17:19, 13 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Lauren Zander

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: Some coverage here [1] and here [2] Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines. Not enough for notability here in wiki. Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Simon T. Bailey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Florida, New York, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

John Werner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Vish Burra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person clearly does meet WP:Notability (people)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloern (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 6 June 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Cutover

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: PROMO as well, this is sourced straight from press releases and venture capital sites. I don't find anything extra we can add to get it to notability... Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: just a huge promotion. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete, as it contains promotional content. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs)} 01:31, 6 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Louisa Rachel Solomon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obvious reason why bandmember should have own page. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BANDMEMBER. Very few internal links. Seaweed (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep as "Louisa Solomon" (as this article should be called) easily meets WP:BASIC. Agree that not every band member should have their own Wikipedia article, but in her case, it is justified because of the focused coverage she has received about her anti-Zionist views while identifying as Jewish and queer. This was discussed in The Washington Post (Online) in 2014 when the band's scheduled performance at a festival run by the DC Jewish Community Center was canceled due to her stated political views. There is also a 2014 Wall Street Journal Online article about her as well as the band. If you compare the band's article (The Shondes) with her biography, the two are distinct – and it's important to note that many reviews about The Shondes (e.g. in Rolling Stone) don't even discuss their religion and politics and the band also includes at least one non-Jewish member. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment It's a fair point, but I just don't see the notability myself. Doesn't seem that significant to merit an entire article. Maybe one sentence in the band's page at best in context of the cancelled concert. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. There is additional coverage about Louisa Solomon becoming the on-campus rabbi at The New School in 2023 in this article in NY Jewish Week and about her involvement in an October 2023 rally organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, where she brought her two children in this 2023 The New York Times article. Both have now been added to the article. Taken cumulatively with the coverage already mentioned in my keep !vote above, it demonstrates WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time for a Jewish punk musician who is also a rabbi-in-training and a political activist. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, After Ellen, and The New York Times so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Peter Riva

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Management, Switzerland, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 9 June 2024 (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.

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 ‎ delete. The deciding issue here is the lack of in-depth and independent sourcing. For commercial companies, the standards here are quite stringent. If press releases and the like are accepted as sufficient sourcing, ut is hard to avoid Wikipedia becoming an indirect marketing tool. The article contains several sources, not all of them about the company. Hkkingg listed a number of sources that cover the company in some depth, but the analysis by HighKing on the source's independence and reliability is convincing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Tushy (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So as I mentioned on my AfD for their CEO, here I am. There were... quite the volume of WP:PRODUCTREV to get through, but nothing with significant coverage of the company, and barely anything on any specific product. Though this was not the primary focus, I do not believe any individual product of theirs is notable either, even ignoring questions of ORGIND or RS. The coverage of their events would seem to be excluded on WP:SPIP. I don't see any plausible way to meet WP:NCORP here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak keep: Sources 1 and 34 in the article are RS per Cite Highlighter and provide some coverage about the company. The rest help at least meet BASIC, some more extensive than others, but we should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]
WP:BASIC does not apply to companies, only people. But still they may qualify. I am gonna have a deeper look. Hkkingg (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]
It meets GNG then, we have enough to establish basic notability about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: based on present citations including dfdnews, People, Self.com, Digital Trends, Bidet Genius, and tech Crunch.Hkkingg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Guess I was talking to a sock

Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [3] [4] [5] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]
It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
"Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. This is written by a bot that scrapes "billions of anonymised purchased to answer real-time questions on consumer behaviour", no deffo not a reliable source/article. It also only mentions the company once, in-passing, and has zero in-depth information about the company - fails WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. This in People is based entirely on a company announcement and their own published words, this is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This is a review of a bidet, zero "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. This in Digital Trends is based entirely on an announcement - it is a regurgitated ad - and has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This from Bidet Genius is first of all written by a company that sells Bidets, so not exactly a reliable source and also fails ORGIND as they're not independent. Happens to also not include in-depth information about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH. Finally this from TechCrunch continues the long tradition of this publication acting as an out-sourced marketing department for companies, article fails ORGIND because it is simply a puff profile regurgitating company messaging. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete none of the available sources really meet NCORP criteria, as we cannot find independent, in-depth, non-trivial coverage. --176.210.111.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — 176.210.111.198 (talk) has only contributed to this XFD page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) not sure if you're someone who forgot to sign in or...[]

Comment they also want to purchase naming rights to a sports stadium in Buffalo [6] and [7]. These are sources that are about the company, not strictly about routine business funding and other normal company goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
How is it not routine coverage, and WP:SPIP besides? What "critical analysis of the event" is there? A few puns? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
in addition, there are a ton of "profiles". see the nytimes Freedun (yippity yap) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

On second thought, there is enough for an article about the founder. i think I'm going to start that some time but business people are kinda boring Freedun (yippity yap) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Now blocked as a UPE sock by Ponyo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]
No objection to an article on Miki Agrawal, a quick glance indicates BASIC seems plausible, but for a company article the sources we need to write an article about a company need to be about the company. That means there needs to be independent content, published in independent RS, that is detailed and secondary enough to actually write an article from those sources. A profile on the founder doesn't cut it, even if the company is mentioned. (No matter how many times those mentions happen. Quantity is not a substitute.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, mainly regurgitated company announcements and other PR-related content. If anyone thinks there are references that meet NCORP, post a link and indicate which paragraph/page/whatever contains the Independent in-depth Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Cite Highlighter is not enough for corporations and organizations; we have to look at the articles and examine whether there is significant coverage from independent. I've read through sources 1 and 34, which Oaktree b mentioned above, and it's a bit of a stretch. The first one principally seems about the CEO's marketing stunt, but that isn't really coverage of the company. And the second is a report that a bidet company has made a bid for the Bills stadium, which is a form of a routine business announcement. I've also read the other sources mentioned by Hkkingg, and I find the analysis by HighKing to be convincing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Phil Agcaoili

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Coverage is all about SecureIT and Verisign, nothing about this person, other than mentioned in passing. I don't find any sources for this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 15 June 2024 (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.

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. This article still needs work to make it less promotional, though. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Scott Fox (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

Scott

p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: As others have noted above, the subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Sal2100 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Sacks and Co.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [[8]] from 2006 was all I could unearth

I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Advertising, Companies, Management, California, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment The Sacks and Co. article currently lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, raising concerns about its verifiability and relevance. However, instead of deletion, efforts could be made to improve the article by adding credible references and enhancing its content.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I have undertaken such an effort to improve and, as noted, only a single credible reference could be found. Volcom95 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Article was created in 2008 by an SPI, indeed that was their only edit. Per the above, only one source could be found, so subject is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Fail WP:NCORP. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to WXXA-TV. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

WEDG-TV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to WXXA-TV: it is mentioned there, as this was a cable-only UPN affiliate that was a joint venture between WXXA and Time Warner Cable. That partnership was basically another one of those "digital subchannels before digital subchannels were much of a thing" deals, and while I'm certain "WEDG"/"UPN4" did get some coverage that does not necessarily mean separate notability (or even the need for a separate page). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with WNYA Like many other WB+ cable stations that went to The CW Plus and digital subchannels in 2006 and beyond, this is effectively the same thing, only involving UPN locally; started life as WEDG on cable, then for all intents and purposes outside the syndication contracts transferred to WXXA, the most important thing in UPN moved over-the-air to channel 51, along with its existing cable 4 position. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with WNYA would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just relisting to be sure about Merge target article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with WXXA-TV, which actually operated this channel. (The WNYA article certainly would have to include a mention of this one, but it is operationally unrelated.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to the WXXA-TV article and/or WNYA: It sounds kinda self-explanatory in its self. WXXA had UPN as an secondary affiliation from 1995 when UPN signed on for the first time to 1998 when they signed primary O&O PAX-TV station WYPX-TV as an secondary affiliate and WVBG-LD as the primary affiliate on air. (On cable, WSBK in Boston or WWOR in Secaucus, NJ–New York City, NY, depending on the cable provider.) WXXA operated that cable-only station WEDG from 2000 until 2003 when WNYA grabbed the UPN affiliation. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with WXXA, WXXA is the operator, and WEDG on its own can’t be notable. Danubeball (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Keep votes have failed to identiy sources that can provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Gabriel & Co.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]

A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Mathematics education in New York

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unsourced and out-of-date. Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States. Possibly could be redirected to New York Regents Examinations. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [9], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
- Perhaps merging this with some material from New York Regents Examinations and renaming would be an improvement? Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]
  I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Definitely a notable and encyclopedic topic, even if the article is extremely out of date and in poor shape. I'd rather see somebody improve it than have it deleted as cleanup. Malinaccier (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Continenttimes.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 June 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.

2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[]

P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.

As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.

Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[]

I'd just like to clarify a thing here. WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style, and explain what purposes of lists are; it now a way to determine notability, which can only be done through WP:NLIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Strong keep as deprodder. In my view it meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:NLIST and I feel this is a commonsensical call. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: this is a list article relating to a notable hobby (stamp collecting) and with notable members (stamp clubs)—although arguably the latter is not a requirement for a list topic; you could have a list article even if none of its members are individually notable. It is not necessary to find a reliable source that says, "the following is a list of stamp clubs in the United States", but any source that does something along those lines may be cited, even if it is A) a directory—Wikipedia is not a directory; that doesn't mean that directories cannot be used as sources—or B) it only lists some of the clubs mentioned in this list. It is unnecessary to cite a source to say that a club whose name identifies what it is is a stamp club. At most, individual items that are identifiable as stamp clubs by their name just need a source to show that they exist (or did at one point), and for that purpose a directory is fine. Even this is unnecessary for items that link to articles about notable clubs, which are documented in the linked articles. Satisfying these requirements should be exceptionally easy... P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I've now cited as many of the entries as I could find at least a directory or event listing for in general philatelic literature. And to repeat, WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here; it is well-established that items that are not individually notable may be combined into list articles. Stamp collecting is clearly a notable topic, and as mentioned above there is indeed considerable literature on the subject, including stamp collecting societies, their history, membership, and publications. I have cited a number of examples to verify the stamp clubs listed; there was of course much more activity and many more publications in the early twentieth century, when social clubs and their publications were a staple of American life.

Most of this body of literature is not freely-accessible online, but enough is available in previews and snippet views on Google Books to verify the existence of most of the stamp clubs mentioned, along with their location and some other details—and for the purposes of this article, which is merely a list of philatelic societies in the United States, that is sufficient to warrant their inclusion. Many more could be added if the literature on the subject were easier to access, or someone spent more than a couple of days poring over such periodicals at the library. P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (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.

Proposed deletions

Templates

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==New York==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYPD Cricket League}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lauren_Zander}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_T._Bailey}}