Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hunter

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu. His notability as an actor is staked on minor and guest roles, mostly as unnamed characters, and being in a beefcake calendar, and the referencing is stacked almost entirely onto unreliable sources like IMDb and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, except for a miniscule sprinkling of "local guy does stuff" coverage in his own hometown newspaper. And there's also a significant amount of reference bombing going on here, with many facts referenced to three or four of those weak sources apiece instead of just one good one. Nothing here, either in the sourcing or the substance, constitutes a reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article -- a person has to have had major roles, not walk-ons as "Cop #2", to pass NACTOR, and they have to have reliable source coverage in real media to support it, not just a bombardment of directory pages on IMDb or an IMDb wannabe. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question is a notable side actor. Annakoppad (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which you need to properly demonstrate by reliably sourcing the article to media coverage about his acting, if you expect that to be taken as an actual reason why the article would get kept. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small actors with a good track record cannot have a page on themselves. Even otherwise, the article passes WP:Basic. Also it does not suffer from lack of references." Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article." I will try and add more references. Please do not delete the page. Thanks in advance, Annakoppad (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge an article's keepability by the raw number of footnotes that it has — we judge its keepability by how many good references it has. Not all possible references are valid or notability-supporting ones: IMDb and blogs cannot be used to support notability, for instance. We require media coverage about his acting before we can deem the article to be properly referenced and keepable — and that's not what you've been showing. The referencing test is a matter of quality, not quantity — for example, an article that has just one footnote can be considered better referenced than an article that has 30 footnotes, if the 30 are all IMDB and blogs while the one is an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor roles with generic titles like "Firefighter" and "Pawnshop Man" don't satisfy NACTOR, nor do I see any significant press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of super minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward W. De Barbieri

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

It is difficult to believe that an assistant professor (basically the lowest level of professorship and often not tenured) would meet WP:PROF criteria for inclusion. The question is whether his side-position as "Director of the Community Development Clinic" qualifies under our criteria. See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Sgarlata Chung, about an another professor article created by the same editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a director is not really a WP:PROF criteria and that school apparently has 400 students....Nothing on google scholar either. Galobtter (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete directors of minor programs at any given institution are a dime a dozen. Maybe if we had sources showing his role as director makes him an important person and inpactful in the larger community, but the one source here does not demonstrate such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as my delete opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Sgarlata Chung. By all indicators (citations, academic rank, administrative positions, etc) he is less notable than Chung, and I don't think she's notable either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence A. May

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article really convinces me that an article is justified, and a search for independent coverage didn't find any. --Michig (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly lacks third party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2017 (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.

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 Alicia Yoon. I will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it into the new target. J04n(talk page) 19:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peach & Lily (beauty brand)

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

not notable The references are just notices and press releases or based on press releases. TheNNYT article is a bout Korean beauty products in general , and just mentions the company. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any potential refs on Google News, just one press release. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - On the fence with this one. There is a lot of press although much of it is brief mentions. There are some that are in-depth but they talk more about the founder and how she got started with the company. Since an article already exists on Alicia Yoon, I would say merge the information there. References like this and this show her notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a little concerned that the creator made the page under a disambiguation title. This always gives me a sense that someone is trying to skirt guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I found out why. This was part of a previous COIN discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And Peach & Lily was deleted before. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Alicia Yoon in lieu of deletion. There is enough coverage in reliable sources to verify information about the company. Material about the company can be merged to its founder, Alicia Yoon. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alicia Yoon as an alternative to deletion. The latter article has remarkably survived an AfD (where I voted "delete"). At very least, Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. I don't see anything worth merging, just promo 'cruft. Delete & Redirect would also be acceptable for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (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.

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Freville

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources are either personally written by article subject/company, or are not reliable, or are just directory listings. Deleted a couple of times via WP:PROD already, restored by WP:REFUND requests (which revealed the article was written by a fan to "spread the word"). Time to settle this once and for all in AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I listed when I proposed deletion, which are pretty much the same as the nominator's. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concerns with notability and promotional nature. -FASTILY 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2017 (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.

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mandelbaum

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

Seems pretty simple to me, article doesn't meet WP:BIO and is a stub with one source that can barely be considered a source in the article. Zorbo678 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book Not Since Carrie is notable. The author might not be, but since we don't have a page on the book this is close enough. See "indispensable book" and "a holy text". Pburka (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book is notability treshold for sure. Notable. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Der Panther

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

Non-notable band, no coverage in RS anywhere I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources. Normally with a band name that gives a lot of false positives I would combine it with the band's home town, names of band members, album titles, etc. In this case, with so little info, the only one of these that seemed likely to get any results was album titles, and this still drew a blank. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as there is absolutely no coverage of them in independent sources anywhere. Lots of POV statements, lots of peacock language, and strong suspicions that this article was written by someone close to the band – if nobody knows who the members are, then how do they know which cities they come from? Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (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.

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Attia

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

fails WP:GNG sources are mostly bios and passing mentions. Article created by a blocked sockpuppet Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find references that demonstrate WP:BIO is met, plus obviously written by experienced undisclosed paid editors who've almost certainly already been blocked. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2017 (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.

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lawson

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

This biography (most likely an autobiography) is of a non-notable individual. Acting and musician roles are minor - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. The three references are a press release and two blog posts. Peacock (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should NOT be deleted for several reasons. There are many reliable and 100% accurate websites and information online about Jordan Lawson’s career and work. I for one have done my research on this person and his work. He is a pretty well known actor and musician in the LA area from what I can see online and hear from others as well. Also, all the information about his work on this page is verifiable online and I also taken the time to make sure this is accurate and correct. The only reason ANYONE would want this page (which has been on Wikipedia for years) deleted, is because they must have some sort of beef or grudge they are holding against the Actor/Musician. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be taking all their time trying to have this page deleted. Just my opinion. This page belongs on Wikipedia, is correct and the person “Jordan Lawson” it is about is a popular enough individual to be on this website as well. Thanks and god bless!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I tried erasing the “deletion” page for Jordan Lawson but this was unsuccessful at the time. Someone (most likely the person who originally made the deletion page) re-added it back on Jordan Lawson’s Page. I’ve read the comments and information about this page. Being someone who takes Wikipedia seriously, I cannot see any part of this actor and musician’s page that should be removed. All of the information on the page, as well as the individual’s known reputation verifies the accuracy of the page and leads me to believe this page should not be deleted. I agree with Roger Moore who also commented about this earlier. The person or persons who created this deletion page does not understand and/or know who the person actually is. This person is a public figure and I know who he is. Many other people that I have asked also know who Jordan Lawson is and agree with the Wikipedia page and information about him in it. Jordan Lawson is on many different websites and all of this on his page has been verified years ago. Probably before the Wikipedia page about him was even created. So it shouldn’t be deleted and is a valuable addition to this website for fans and anyone who enjoys Jordan’s work. I also am adding this last bit of info with my comment here as well. I realized that there are quite a few Wikipedia pages that mention Jordan Lawson and his work. For example, there are music pages, instrument pages, Acting pages, different city pages, schools, etc that all list him because he is notable enough to be and the 20-25 pages I’ve seen so far all seem to agree about his reputation, work, popularity, etc. That is all. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Long-winded speeches aside (both seemingly posted by the same user under different IPs, no less), the subject is completely non-notable as both a musician and an actor. There's no getting around the fact that the article was basically created as a promotional piece. Only sources cited were PR interviews that do not comply with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. Lastly, you cannot erase a deletion template under any circumstance until the issue has been resolved. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person or persons who have taken the time to put this page up for deletion continue to attempt to erase parts of this page that have been verified and posted to the page long ago. Information about this person and the page will continue to be updated and verifiable info will continue to be added until the issue has been resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets any notability guidelines. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete More information had been added to this page previously and someone erased and/or attempted to undo changes tat had been made. This individual has reliable sources and credible work that has been listed on the page. Films, Television and stage performances, as well as several musical acts that are popular and have gained notoriety in the past. All of which was added to page months ago. Will re add again and I will add more sources that had been deleted previously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note A group of unregistered users, including 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E, are currently collaborating on a draft for an all-male band called Rocket, of which Jordan Lawson is a member. I say "all male" because an article (since deleted) on an all-female band named Rocket had been hijacked and rewritten about the male band under the same article title, mainly by anon accounts. It was reverted to the original version on November 7, and the next day the draft was created. The male band has never had a Wikipedia article due to lack of notability. Given the fervor of those herein opposing the deletion of Jordan Lawson (only anons so far), coupled with the similar promotional-sounding and poorly-sourced tone of the draft plus the timing of its creation and the edit histories of its creators, they are more than likely connected with — or actually are — the band and/or Lawson, and are openly attempting to promote both subjects on Wikipedia. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:56, 14 November 2017 (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.

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candis Cox

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

Already tagged for notability, there appears to be on superficial coverage and not necessarily enough to meet GNG or make her notable Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a personal bio, with a good amount of promotional material/puffery, and nothing that suggests GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local level activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Hoffman

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

BLP without external references Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an alternative-medicine talk-show host; there isn't nearly enough coverage to meet WP:BLPFRINGE or to avoid promotional concerns. The "uncited" material is almost certainly based on his own website, which is a primary source. I believe this is about a different doctor of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 11 November 2017 (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.

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 List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink. Sandstein 20:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Natural Spring Water

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

Article primarily sourced to a single press release and the corporate website of the maker or owner of a product. Not notable per WP:GNG by any stretch. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I am finding passing references to this product, such as: this Washington Post article about many Trump-labeled products and this Wall Street Journal article about Trump Hotels (most of which is behind a paywall, but I find nothing of substance which focuses on the product itself. Such passing mentions do not satisfy general notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find any significant coverage to demonstrate the topic meets WP:ORGCRITE or WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Donald Trump. AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink As with most 'vanity' bottled waters, just yet another brand that if you took the label off, nobody would care where it's from (compare to the many store brands bottled by Niagara Bottling). Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink. Plausible redirect that can be covered in toto at that location. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (insert favorite tasteless joke here) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list doesn't allow development of this topic. An interesting merge target would be Trump Steaks. A search on ["trump water" "trump steaks"] was helpful.
This product is far more famous than its commercial success, because Trump used it during the 2016 Republican primary to claim that Mitt Romney had attacked it. The water was featured at a famous press conference that was characterized as an infomercial, ref, along with Trump Steaks, Trump Wine, Trump Magazine, and Trump University. This led to investigation of the water, which was found to be bottled by Village Springs, who provides bottled water for many customers. A look at Google news shows that as of 26 October 2017, "Trump water" is still current political lingo, which pretty much seals the case that the notability is enduring, [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: just confirming, you want to merge to Trump Steaks? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a merge to Trump Steaks would work, since the two topics are intertwined. I think that the steak is slightly more notable...unlike the water, Romney really did question the failed steak business, diff. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2017 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Fusco

z:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep She is famous dermatologist, please seee this link -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/magazine/the-unveiling.html

More

http://www.debbreport.com/directory/entry/dr.-francesca-fusco/

http://www.redonline.co.uk/beauty/10-best/adding-sugar-to-shampoo

Interview

https://thelondonlassie.com/interview/dr-francesca-fusco/

Thakhinma (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. As she appeared quite often on TV, it's worth keeping the article, to be available, when she's next on TV. NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fusco is notable dermatologist, i well known in Sunsilk advertising on Burmese Televisions and more. 楊過007 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 楊過007 has been blocked for sock-puppetry power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sources. Francesca Fusco as a celebrity hair expert should meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was ready to wield the deletion bludgeon, but THIS TV appearance indicates a "recognized expert" status. Also spotted passing mention in a New York Times piece. So I'll note my lack of venom after a cursory Google sweep and move along. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references in the article suggest notability; the NYTimes mention is a trivial one-line mention and the others are even less supportive of GNG. She does botox in New York City, and none of the references suggest any notability beyond that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to showing she meets notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sources Fusco id a celebrity dermatologist in New York. She is a world-leading expert in Dermatology and Dermatologic surgery. I think this article is notable issue.

~~I found in this sources links~~

~~http://www.clearhaircare.com/article/detail/905360/meet-dr-fusco~~

~~http://www.beautyinthebag.com/wordpress/meet-dr-francesca-fusco-nyc-cosmetic-dermatologist/~~

~~https://www.allure.com/story/dermatologist-francesca-fusco~~

~~MahamayuriSMK (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)~~ (MahamayuriSMK is a CU confirmed socks of楊過007 Matthew_hk t c 05:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Are you paid to produce this rubbish? Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am afraid User:MahamayuriSMK was yet another sock of User:楊過007 which the sockmaster was banned for creating User:Thakhinma, so these comments and vote by them should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/楊過007 for the evidence i submitted for MahamayuriSMK)Matthew_hk t c 08:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source to have extended in-depth coverage on the subject, just one sentence mention the name and her suggestion, fail WP:GNG Matthew_hk t c 03:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing a Google News search brings up some positive leads. I see coverage in Orticalab (sorry, Italian's not good enough), Vogue and Marie Claire. Seems she has been covered quite a bit in publications geared towards women and beauty therapy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The orticalab piece appears to be an interview with a swimmer unrelated to the article's subject. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, the sources are limited to passing mentions / quotes by the subject (e.g. Marie Claire, Vogue), an interview, directory listings and a piece in New York Times containing some advice by the subject but not focused on her. Not enough to meet WP:GNG, and the fact that the article was created by a blocked sock does not make it any better. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed AfDs for porn stars as "keep" with less coverage that is in the article as I write this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me thinking that Reedsy (where we both voted delete) had stronger coverage than this subject... Rentier (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you made, and are making, mistakes on both Reedsy and this article? The mistake being that you feel yourself empowered to judge the strength of reliable sources rather than their existence. I think this is a slippery path in that by trying to measure the strength of a source, we are overriding the judgment of the editors of publications such as The Guardian and others, and substituting our personal ideas about a subject's notability. My advice is: please stick to the general notability guideline. It has worked, it works, it will work in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG has always been open to interpretation and there is no clarity to be gained by "sticking to it". I prefer to see a bit more depth of coverage - I don't think a decent, neutral article can be written here without sacrificing reliability and accuracy. In addition, as far as I'm aware, there is consensus that interviews don't normally contribute to notability, so neither should one-sentence pieces of advice given by the subject. Rentier (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources meet the GNG. Article is a bit promotional however and should be trimmed, if kept.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some information profiling her on HighBeam and added it. She's not just "a go-to dermatologist" in the US, she's pretty international. The amount of articles she's in as an expert is pretty staggering. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Checked the sources. She meets the GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet notability for academics. There are plenty of good doctors that are not notable. Just because the media likes her does not make her notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is what makes her notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The living person look find to WP:GNG for me, it doesn't seem to be deleted. I agree with User:Optakeover, the reference sources need to be improved. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw. The article is much improved. She might not qualify as a notable academic, but that is not the only way doctors can be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (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.

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 moved to Draft:Paine Schwartz Partners pending improvement. There may be some hope for this as an article, but it is clearly not ready for mainspace. I have moved it to draft space, where it can be improved, with the caveat that it must be submitted for admin review before being restored to mainspace. To this end, I have locked the mainspace title and move-locked the draft. Of course, if the article is not improved, it will eventually be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Schwartz Partners

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

No evidence of any notability. Sourcing is poor but searches reveal little that is any better. A bloomberg item noting the name change and a few others noting simple company data. Nothing of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It was in bad shape, agreed, but I've added several secondary RS to support referenced material and have removed unreferenced material. Notable due to its controversial, litigious history as well as the many recent and current investments in global food supply tech and receiving WP:SIGCOV for doing so from Reuters, WSJ and Fortune, among others. Could use more work, certainly, but given the wide array of RS available since the firms inception in 2007, there's no reason to toss the baby. Pegnawl (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - text is about predecessors and other people, not about the firm. List of investments doesn't look notable either. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Filled with puffed-up language such as "investment platform focused on sustainable food chain investing!" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio Films

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

Recreation of promotion of non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets any notability guidelines. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cines

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

BLP no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a full professor who has authored a number of very highly cited papers, passing WP:PROF#C1. I suspect at least some of the awards listed on his faculty page would pass WP:PROF#C2 as well. As has been pointed out to you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Epstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy E. Dunlap, etc.), citations to independent sources are neither a requirement for BLPs or a valid reason for deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five of his publications have over 1000 citations in Google Scholar, an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. The nomination statement refers to a different notability criterion than the one that is most relevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the requirements for WP:PROF. There are those who don't think WP:PROF should be an accepted guideline, but the giodeline has consistently stood up to challenges for over a decade now. It does not make sense to be objecting to the instances where it most obviously shows its value. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (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.

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 Jesse Lacey#Personal life. Not much discussion here. I suppose I could call this No Consensus, but I'm going with the redirect. The history is still there, so if somebody wants to mine the current article for information to merge, that's an option, but I won't include it in the consensus. If you do perform a merge, please see WP:SMERGE to make sure you're providing proper attribution. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coasta (band)

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

Non-notable band/musician and only claim to fame is that the creator/lead is the brother of someone notable. No coverage in RS, no charts, nothing qualifying under WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Jesse Lacey. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a Google search and found some more reliable sources, which I added to the article. I think it now passes GNG. Andise1 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure, since they haven't done much (released only one EP five years ago that went nowhere), and aren't signed to a notable label. WP:TOOSOON, if anything. Citations are more niche than third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 18 November 2017 (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.

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. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page. A Train^talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Berman

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

Article fails GNG. Berman appears to only have received coverage due to the fact he was and/or is being considered for appointment as a U.S. federal prosecutor. May be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As per John Pack Lambert, if/when confirmed and commissioned he will undoubtedly pass GNG. And, because this might occur in the very near future, I am changing my initial nomination to userfy. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ~~I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability.~~ Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted. Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.

It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months David Zatezalo has been on the docket for MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay. Rhadow (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User-fy if he's nominated for US Attorney he'll meet GNG. As it is, I don't see it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 11 November 2017 (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.

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. ansh 666 06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winters Brothers

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

The article does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. This appears to me to be an unremarkable waste and recycling company. Notability hinges on the four articles in Newstimes, which in my assessment mostly feature the company talking about itself and appear to be the work of a PR company and would fail WP:ORGIND. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I agree. The notability hinges on the Newstimes articles but they don't meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently expanded on the article to discuss the significant railroad operations in the Connecticut and New York regions. This article describes a notable company in the Connecticut and Long Island regions, being the largest waste management company in these markets. For example, all of Waste Management's operations in Connecticut and New York (excluding NYC) are contracted through Winters Brothers. I disagree that the references cited fail Wikipedia's credibility standards, as the news articles were created by independent news sources and all company profiles and information about the company listed on Wikipedia are from third-party sources. There are several links to other pages on Wikipedia, including TWO railroad lines that the company operates with under contract. This article is also not a stub, and provides plenty of information as to the history of the company, and how it holds some of the largest waste management assets in the Northeast Untied States. I would not have taken the time to write this article if I did not feel this company had a significant economic impact on this region of the country, where most waste services are privatized. These are the reasons why I find this article to be significant, and I hope you take the time to review the recent changes I have made and hopefully reconsider. Rather than campaigning to delete these articles of mid-sized companies in the Northeast US, please help me to expand upon them. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
- Comment The test for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability is not solely whether an article was created by an independent news source but the article must also be "intellectually" independent. Similarly, for the purposes of establishing notability, content published by third party sources must also be intellectually independent. Therefore references that rely almost exclusively on content prepared and/or published by the company or their officers is not considered intellectually independent and therefore these references do not assist in establishing the notability of this company. Of the references provided, none meet the criteria and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstimes article relies exclusively on an interview with Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstime article from June 2011 also relies exclusively on information provided by the company, their employees and Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - The bloomberg profile is provided by the company, as are all profiles published by Bloomberg. It is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a run-of-the-mill company description and fails WP:ORGIND as it is provided by the company.
  - This newstime article from March 2011 is largely based on a company announcement and quotations and/or an interview with company officers, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstime article from July 2011 is largely based on a news conference held by Mr. Winters, contains no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This winterbros reference and this one are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for independence for the purposes of establishing notability.
  - This libn.com article on "trash trains" relies on quotations from Will Flower, a company officer, for information on Winters Bros and is therefore not intellectually independent and does not contain independent opinion or analysis in relation to Winters Bros, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - The reference from thereflectedpast.com and the hrrc.com reference make no mention of the Winter Bros.
  - This prnewswire reference is a company announcement, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  - this waste360.com reference is based on a news release (as is stated at the end of the second paragraph) and is largely based on a company press release and fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This reference from pehub.com is based on a press release from an investor, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- In my opinion and based on the points I've raised above, none of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and it is a small part of the overall test to check that the articles were published by organisations independent of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still lacks any reliable independent references to establish notability, as detailed above.. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case, I think the sources are in fact sufficient to show notability. and the importance of the company sufficient that this is what would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (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.

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Bridge Street With Rick and Julie (via WP:PROD) local radio program for Syracuse, New York
Extreme points of New York (via WP:PROD on 30 October 2007) Deleted
South Side, New Rochelle (via WP:PROD)
Castle, New Rochelle (via WP:PROD)

Templates

TFD April 6 — {{NYRepresentatives}}