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. Tone 18:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Loeb

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

Fails WP:GNG, not quite an unsourced WP:BLP but it's pretty close. I can't find any significant coverage in any before searches - there's a couple routine mentions in Billboard from the 80's. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to say this was an important figure in New York hip hop recording.
The DJ Booth
Music Origins Bio
New York intelligencer
Billboard Magazine

WP:PRODUCER produced the pop single "Amityville" for rapper Lovebug Starski Billboard which reached #12 on the UK Charts. Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You found some of the same sources I did. Not a single one of those is WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the subject. Guy (help!) 13:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable 3rd party sources have been presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax (band)

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Promotion for Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Sources identified last time, [1], [2] are both interviews lacking independent analysis, insufficient independence. Also questionable reliability, [3], [4] (?every single article by the one author) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of the unfortunate UPE the article can be cleaned up. I base my !vote on the article. There is enough notability. There is some refs to be found in alternative music press: [5]. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What refs? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This article already survived an AfD earlier this year, with a flimsy "no consensus" result, but here the same nominator is trying again with the same rationale. The band has indeed been profiled in the alternative press: e.g. [6] and they have been profiled by Rolling Stone India: [7]. I admit it's not much so that's why my vote is "weak keep", but the band's notability and the conflict of interest with the article's author are two different issues. If the band is deemed notable, the article can be rescued from the clutches of a paid promoter and improved by the volunteer community. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DOOMSDAYER520. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2nd nomination for the same weak sources, COI in terms of UPE and no changes were made via volunteer community after the first flimsy no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerstalk3r22 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Rockerstalk3r22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The sources that claim their singles "Sway"^[1] and "Moon Moon Baby"^[2] have charted are not correctly sourced. They share the same citation and leads directly to Chartmetric.io homepage. The chart positions for these songs are unverified. As per Rockerstalk3r22, corrections have not been made to this article since the first non-consensus. ^[3] Lioness mames (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Lioness mames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep per doomsdayer520. In a cursory search there appears to be just enough RS to meet the criteria at WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to weak keep; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was the original "weak keep" voter above, and if that is the ultimate result I will work on the article and remove anything that may represent a conflict of interest or attempted promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2019 (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. Tone 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Doyle (actor)

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

~~I don't think this actor meets WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN and WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)~~ - User has been site banned by Arbcom. (This may or may not change the final result based on consensus already established so far)[reply]

Tentative Keep. I understand the argument for deletion, but its always better to err on the side of caution in these cases. While the significant number of wiki-type sources on him aren't necessarily the standard for reliability, the number I found with just an initial search does indicate his impact. I think any voice actor, no matter how marginal the audience, with 26 roles over 24 works can be justified an appropriate subject for an article to keep. I guess it's open to discussion, though. ƒin (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is the WP:SIGCOV on the actor in question? Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criterion for WP:ENT based off his lead role in Eureka Seven, Cyborg 009, Zenki, and other roles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic from Eureka Seven is a main supporting role at best..... Renton is the main character of E7. Just naming a bunch of titles isn't notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Dominic" at the List of Eureka Seven episodes shows they were in a lot of episodes and seem to be a significant character. Dream Focus 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tanda is one of the main characters of Moribito, and they also did the main character for Zenki. The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. Dream Focus 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is the coverage for said roles? Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Don't need coverage to confirm these are notable roles. Someone who got coverage for a minor appearance wouldn't be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER but would be under the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually no reliable sources to establish notability aside from ANN. All the ANN pieces are critical of Doyle's work, but not included in the article. Esw01407 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT and roles Lord Roem pointed out. Rab V (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reception for Doyle shows he has at least two major roles that were critically reviewed but with a minor sentence or two that doesn't really explain his career, so I can't count it as significant coverage. I just can't find any background on this person beyond that, so even if the critiques are added, it is likely to end up as a WP:PERMASTUB. It wouldn't be missed if it were deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permastub is just an essay, a personal opinion not supported by enough people to become a guideline, so meaningless in any deletion discussion. WP:NOTABILITY is the guideline that determines things, and it says an article must meet the General Notability Guidelines, OR the subject specific guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER, never had to meet both since then the subject specific ones wouldn't have a reason to exist. Dream Focus 02:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:ENT. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am with Angus on this one when it comes to the available sources. WP:SIGCOV falls under WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:ENT is listed under "Additional criteria". What is the use of having a biography about a living person without the proper sources? It goes against WP:BLP in terms of potential WP:HARM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sider

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an artist, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for artists. The only serious notability claim even being attempted here is the number of followers he has on Instagram, which is not part of our notability criteria for any human occupation -- and of the four footnotes here, two are his own self-published content about himself and a third is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself (as opposed to being written about in the third person by a journalist) on a non-notable art blog, so 75 per cent of the sources here are doing absolutely nothing whatsoever in terms of establishing his notability. And while the other footnote is a real magazine article that counts for something, even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires more than just one source of that calibre. Artists, as always, are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clearly non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a few sources but notability is pretty marginal here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above,does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are independent of the artist or his gallery. No evidence that any of his artwork in in any major art museum. For someone who's supposedly in the NYC art scene, there's literally zero articles about him on Google newspapers. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not indicated in the article nor in a BEFORE. Article creator and main editor is a single purpose account. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. and WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Cole

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

Biography that has lacked independent sources since 2010. I looked but didn’t find any. The two sources provided in the article are by her, not about her. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I, too, could find no reliable sources. The subject has self published one or two books via a vanity press. No notability shown in the article nor can any media coverage be found. Sorely fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that such a totally non-encyclopedia in tone article has survived for nine years is a clear sign that Wikipedia's article creation process is broken and we need to go to manadating that every article goes through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - articles by her but insufficient articles about her to create an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2019 (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. So Why 09:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers

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

We already have numerous Lists of LGBT people, grouped by occupation or religion or in alphabetical order -- but I cannot think of any good reason why we would need to maintain a list of LGBTQ-identified residents of one specific city. As big and important as New York City is, its LGBTQ community is not so much more special than anywhere else's LGBTQ communities that it needs unique treatment denied other cities -- if we do this for New York City, then we have to do it for Los Angeles and San Francisco and Chicago and Seattle and Atlanta and Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver and London and Manchester and Berlin and Paris and Barcelona and Madrid and Rome and Sydney too, and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should do that. Historically significant figures should certainly be named in LGBT culture in New York City, where their importance can be contextualized, but we do not need a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every LGBTQ person who happens to live there if we're not doing the same for any other city on earth. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep the article: That line of reasoning is absolutely frivolous and ridiculous, Bearcat. Nobody "has" to create an article for "Los Angeles and San Francisco and Chicago and Seattle and Atlanta and Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver and London and Manchester and Berlin and Paris and Barcelona and Madrid and Rome and Sydney" - if those cities don't have enough WP:NOTABLE LGBTQ souls to list -----> then tough shit for them. That's no reason or excuse to penalize the prominent LGBTQ community of New York. Where the hell were you over the past four years while this list was being diligently compiled, expending a heck of a lot of sweat and toil by editors Figurefour44, Chrish65, Collier09, and myself, and very recently assisted by admin Risker, while you were still editing the original LGBT culture in New York City article and editing this very list at some point or another???!!! This article meets WP:NOTABILITY standards to the tee. And no city is being "denied" anything- if you want to start a notable LGBTQ souls list for another city -----> go for it!!! If this article somehow offends you -----> then don't read it. But don't destroy someone else's parade. Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you've completely missed the point. "If those cities don't have enough WP:NOTABLE LGBTQ souls to list -----> then tough shit for them" literally has nothing to do with what I said, for starters — I picked the specific cities I named precisely because every one of those cities does have enough notable LGBTQ souls to create a list of: every last man jack one of them is a major international gay mecca whose importance in LGBTQ history is comparable to (or even surpasses, in the case of Berlin especially) NYC's. New York City, as important as it is, does not tower over all other cities as The Ultimate Colossus of the Gay World — it's merely one member of a large group of international world cities that all played significant roles in LGBTQ history, not the king-for-life of the club. The point isn't that other cities couldn't have similar lists, it's precisely that they all could — but whether they should is a different matter entirely. We definitely do not need a comprehensive set of dozens or hundreds of lists of LGBTQ residents of every individual city on earth that has a significant LGBTQ community, and NYC's is not more special than everybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 101A: Just because something doesn't "have" to be there doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be there. Wikipedia 101B: Just because something is not there doesn't mean that something analogous can't or shouldn't be there. Each article is to be judged on its own merits, so stop the comparisons please. Castncoot (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 101C: When somebody tries to introduce a novel type of article into Wikipedia, it is entirely proper and appropriate to evaluate the logical consequences of accepting it. For example, is it a unique topic that stands alone as a uniquely notable thing, or is it a boilerplate topic for which dozens or hundreds or thousands of similar articles about other equivalent things could also be created — and if it's the latter, then do we really need or want that at all?

It's exactly the same principle as why we don't routinely accept all municipal fire or police departments, public library systems, mayors and city councillors, chambers of commerce, local chapters of national organizations, etc., as "inherently" notable just because they exist. Every city has those things, so making one particular city's local version of a universal thing notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires a lot more than just using one or two pieces of WP:ROUTINE local media coverage to demonstrate that it exists. Thousands or even millions of other equivalent topics can always show exactly the same — so the notability test, in that instance, is that the sources have to demonstrate a reason why this city's version is uniquely more notable than most other cities' versions, precisely because we can't feasibly sustain or maintain a blanket program of articles about every city's local version of the same things.

All of which is why the comparisons are not a distraction; they're exactly the crux of the point. To justify this, we need one of two things: either (a) a reason why New York City's LGBTQ community is of such uniquely greater notability than other cities' LGBTQ communities that this can stand alone, or (b) a reason why a comprehensive program of "list of LGBTQ residents of city", for every city in the world that has a sizable LGBTQ community with notable members, would be desirable. "Is this demonstrably more notable than other cities' versions of the same thing" is a test that we apply to local interest content all the time.

Wikipedia 101D: Don't talk to long-established Wikipedia administrators as if they were newbies who didn't understand how Wikipedia works. HTH. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The logic you employ seems to be like running from Home base to 1st base retrograde through 3rd and 2nd base. Is this an informative and notable article that is reliably sourced? Yes. Done. Pretty simple. On the other hand, trying to censor an entire particular topic that is informative and verifiable and neither illegal nor promotional is absurd and not at all consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. Also, article size is uniquely a legitimate issue for the New York City article's page, at least for now. You're ballooning a technical issue into a philosophical question of sibling rivalry, which is the equivalent of the expression "making a mountain out of a mole hill." I also doubt that Berlin for example has even one-tenth the number of LGBTQ members who have their own English Wikipedia pages as NYC- but if Berlin's list ever unexpectedly grows as big as NYC's ----> then by all means, fork it off at that time. Castncoot (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The logic I employ seems to be like nothing of the sort; it seems to be exactly what it is, which is a perfectly logical and correct summary of exactly what Wikipedia actually does on a lot of topics. For example, when somebody tried to create a list of LGBT activists in Sydney last year, listing every single name they could glean from any source whatsoever of anybody who had ever lived in Sydney and could be characterized as an LGBT rights activist, it was deleted for being too indiscriminate, and not uniquely more important than the hundreds or thousands of similar lists that could be compiled for other cities.

Even size issues are sometimes better dealt with by trimming the list for contextual importance than by spinning it off into its own standalone list: for example, somebody once tried to add a list of guest stars on the TV series Murdoch Mysteries to its article, indiscriminately listing every actor with a Wikipedia article who had ever been on the show at all, and then tried to spin it off into its own article on size grounds. But because a similar list could be compiled for absolutely every television series that exists at all, and there's no reason why having a guest role on that show was more notable than having a guest role on any other show, consensus still killed off the list and landed on trimming the embedded list down to only the guest appearances that could be reliably sourced as important enough to warrant being noted in the main article at all rather than indiscriminately listing every guest actor who had ever been on it. Do we need an indiscriminate list of every LGBTQ person who has ever lived in NYC at all? No. What we need is for the LGBTQ culture in NYC article to restrict itself to mentioning the names of people who can claim historic importance: Ali Forney, sure. Marsha P. Johnson, absolutely. Christine Quinn, by all means. Every single queer actor who ever had a supporting role in a Broadway musical? No.

America-centrism is entirely inappropriate in an international encyclopedia, by the way. "American people are more important than German people because they're American" is not a thing we do. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, a fallacious argument, because the Sydney example WAS indiscriminate, employing mostly non-notable names WITHOUT their own Wikipedia articles. As opposed to that or the Murdoch example, this article is composed strictly with people who BOTH have English Wikipedia articles, AND, I have to say, thanks to admin Risker, who forced me to source each entry with in-line citations confirming both LGBTQ status and the NYC connection, or remove the entry entirely- thereby making this now THE most robust list of LGBT notables of any city LGBT article, most of which don't even contain in-line citations in their relatively small lists, including by the way, the LGBT culture in Berlin article. And who are you to determine that historical context alone is more important than current notable presence? Your time and energy would be far more appropriately spent cleaning up every other LGBT city article rather than looking the other way from those and trying to attack this article for being robustly sourced, if anything. Also, a couple of other things- 1) This list has been growing right under your eyesight over the past several years. Where were you to critique then? Seems hypocritical. 2) Don't try to attribute some sort of "America-centric" blame to this article. That's just flat-out false, and very inappropriate on many levels. Castncoot (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not my job to be omnisciently aware of what every article on Wikipedia is doing; my job is to work on the things I notice, not to psychically divine the existence of problems I haven't seen on articles I haven't looked at. (2) You literally flat-out just said that New York's LGBT community is more important than Berlin's, so exactly what am I supposed to think you meant? I'll give you a free hint: the reason the LGBT culture in Berlin article doesn't have a list of LGBTQ residents of Berlin as long as New York's is not that Berlin doesn't have as many notable LGBTQ residents as New York — if anything they've got more, because Berlin's noteworthy LGBTQ history goes decades further back than NYC's — it's because the Berliners correctly ascertained that a comprehensive list of every single queer person who ever lived in the city isn't a thing the article needed.

And while the notability of Sydney's LGBTQ residents was certainly questioned, the central issue to its deletability was the fact that you could just as easily compile the same list for 10,000 other cities around the world with no reason why 10,000 lists of LGBTQ activists divvied up by city was warranted. And the issue with the Murdoch Mysteries list was also not the base notability of the actors, since it comprised predominantly notable actors with Wikipedia articles — it was the fact that you could compile a comparable list for every TV show that ever existed, without a reason why that would be necessary or valuable. Which is why those aren't false comparisons to this: they illustrate exactly the point that precisely because you can compile a virtually identical list for dozens or hundreds of other cities around the world, you need to show either (a) a compelling reason why keeping dozens or hundreds of "LGBT residents of Specific City" lists would be warranted, or (b) a compelling reason why New York's LGBTQ community is somehow so much more unique than any other city's LGBTQ community that keeping it wouldn't even set a precedent in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a lot of inferring and projecting here, and incorrectly so. I never said that one city's LQBTQ community is any more important any other city's, or that one country's people are more important than another's, as they are all significant. If anything, the facts speak the opposite- I don't want to compare NYC with any other city in this regard- primarily four but also other editors over the past several years have de facto compiled a list of notable LGBTQ New Yorkers, minding our own business, concerned only with the New York article, (trying to) follow Wikipedia's rules and standards for WP:Lists, and not worried about any other city's LGBTQ community article. Then all of a sudden, years later, you come back out of thin air trying to find a problem for a solution and espouse this extraordinary theory that somehow this list doesn't have a right to exist. I'm also amazed that you're able to read the minds of all Berliners as if they are a monolithic entity. I don't doubt that Berlin has more notable LGBTQ members on the German Wikipedia- maybe the "Berliners" have already created a list article there. If you really believe that Berlin or any other city has as many WP:NOTABLE LGBTQ individuals as NYC on the English Wikipedia, then as they say, WP:PROVEIT. I doubt you'll be able to do so, but hey, I've been wrong many times before and will be wrong at some point again; however, in this particular instance, I don't believe you are correct. Castncoot (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the requirements of WP:Lists this seems to be perfectly adequate and sustainable. Indeed many cities have notable LGBTQ communities that contribute and shape history and culture. Certainly New York City is prime of them given the LGBTQ history preceding and then including the Stonewall riots, and continued presently. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Gleeanon, who has also contributed to the parent article. And by the way, multiple editors have alluded to the fact that this list has been rivaling the original parent in size, over the years, and so this spin-off was necessary even to meet WP:Articlesize guidelines. Admins Risker and Drmies have also elaborated upon the WP:Articlesize concern. Castncoot (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on similar lists such as List of LGBT Jews its been held that both statements, in that case LGBTQ status plus Jewishness and in this case LGBTQ status plus New York residency/origins, must be explicitly sourced. This list appears to have acceptable cites for LGBTQ status but many dont seem to support the New York half of the statement. Not sure I support outright deletion though, that might be an overstep. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Horse Eye Jack: if you find an instance of any reference not including the NYC connection, then please let me know so I can properly re-source it. I believe, however, that we've been cognizant to make sure that this detail was already attended to on most if not all of the entries. Castncoot (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Not sure why the hostility to this list. Never fail to be impressed, when surfing it, with the immense LGBTQ contribution within the city of New York. It is fascinating -- and quite moving, to be honest -- to see just how integral the LGBTQ community is to NYC. This is worth showcasing.Chrish65 (talk)
This was a notable comment by User:Figurefour44 which also clearly supports Keep, posted when the article was temporarily Userified while still at the stage of sourcing being challenged. Castncoot (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since my name has been invoked here, I think I should at least make a comment. Speaking personally, I'm not a fan of wide-ranging lists, but I know that's a preference rather than a policy-based point. I used to say that it would be ridiculous to have a List of redheads - until it was pointed out to me that, not only did we have such a list, but it had twice survived AfD.
This list is far narrower, of course. Every entry has had double-checked reference sources that confirm the subject has self-identified as being LGBT (or whatever variant adds up to "does not have a straight sexual identity"); I can say that with certainty, because I did the checking as a requirement before returning the list to article space in order to comply with BLP. (See extensive notes on the talk page.) Most, but not all, of those references also confirm that the subject is either resident in, or works in, NYC. The need for additional referencing of residency/workplace is something that can be addressed short of an AFD. There are other potential improvements to the list - should its formatting be changed? does it have too many images? should the listing be alphabetical rather than categorical? should it have a different title? - but none of these points are relevant to whether or not the list should exist. I don't know which administrator will be closing this discussion, but I assume that they will be looking closely at policy-based reasons that support deletion, and I'm not sure I see much of that. Risker (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve read the nominator’s rationale several times and I’m afraid I just can’t see any merit in it. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not indiscriminate, but defined and sourced properly. LGBTQ history/ studies is now an area of academic focus at many universities and has even become a mandatory part of some state public school curriculums (elementary and secondary) within the United States. Lists such as this one are useful academic tools for teachers/researchers in New York. Encyclopedias are first and foremost reference tools, and this is a good reference tool for educators and students in this field of study.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a line of reasoning but not a WP:PAG-based argument presented as deletion rationale. The one policy invoked is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I do not see how the language of that policy applies to this article. And for what it's worth, I disagree with the line of reasoning presented as well: this article's content is accurate, verified (i.e. properly sourced), and, IMO, a net positive to the encyclopedia. I also think that the creation of similar articles for Los Angeles and Toronto and London and Berlin and Paris et al. would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand where WP:INDISCRIMINATE gets invoked here. I don't fully agree with it because I think it's no more indiscriminate than any other list that leads to well-cited material, but I understand where it's coming from. As for the rest of this argument, it feels based in slippery slope fallacy, and while I don't want to write off an argument entirely for having logical fallacies, I struggle to see the merit in it.hewhoam areismyself 07:09, 11 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jarid Siegel

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTY as he only ever played college soccer. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college soccer in the US is so little folowed, I doubt anyone who only played there has ever been notable, clearly not Siegel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill collegiate soccer player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual has only played college football, therefore the article should be deleted since it fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:58, 4 November 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Stairs

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

GNG Fail. The claims of being in museum collections all failed verification. A search (web, books, news) found no SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first nine refs in the article might contribute to notability. Was the nominator able to find any of them? Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, I think your quesiton is answered in the nomination. Additionally, the editor who appears to be the article subject (see next !vote) has now changed the museum collections claims into library collections claims. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is carefully put together (Redacted). I did have a look at references #1 through #9, and a few were available for view on Google Books. They appeared as a design contribution, a brief mention, and a self-penned piece on his project Designers Without Borders, none of which provide WP:SIGCOV. Curiocurio (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References to museum collections were not dishonest, just not specific enough. A museum’s library is still part of its collections, particularly where “artists' books” are concerned. Verifiable links to both the Smithsonian and the Museum of Modern Art New York library collections are searchable, and should not be disparaged. Other collections that could not be verified, such as Brooklyn, were deleted. ElzzeWellze (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked but have not answered directly: are you the article subject?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I initiated the article. I misunderstood it as being “discouraged”, but not “disallowed.” ElzzeWellze (talk) 1:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I read that as you are the article subject. We have rules on this, it is desstrutive to the neutrality of the encyclopedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a problem with claims like One of the titles, “Boundless,” has been the subject of numerous reviews and anthologies. There are no references to support numerous reviews, and the two anthologies do not have Boundless as their subject; it gets a few lines at most. There are many references to Stair's own work, but there isn't anything to show significant critical reception of his work. For example: a statement like His 2007 essay on Design Observer, “Why Design Won’t Save the World,” a critique of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum’s Design for the Other 90% exhibit, proved controversial. If this is so, I would expect to see a substantial number of articles written in response that can be cited to support the claim. I do not consider museum library holdings equivalent to collections that are exhibited for the purposes of meeting our notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Thorne, II

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

Bio sourced only to an obituary with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being related to John Kerry by marriage isn't going to do it, and his business career doesn't seem to have attracted any attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a niece who was married to a senator is his closest claim to notability, and that is no claim at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:GNG. Individual is not notable. Being "family" of a prominent U.S. Senator does not automatically guarantee notability. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:06, 4 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Van Der Hoeven

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

Not a notable actress or dancer - notability is not inherited from relatives. Only reference is IMDB. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a student of a significant person does not inherently make one significant, and her roles do not pass the significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary chorus line dancer, this is mere puffery about her vague associations with whom she worked. There's no mention of her in the official history of the Martha Graham company/. In fact, she was last billed by Martha Graham herself. She did dance in Jose Limon's company but she was one of many in his group. The coverage of her, let's say, is not significant outside of her own self-hagiography. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2019 (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 Marjorie Gubelmann. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vie Luxe International

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Appears to be WP:PAID/WP:COI creation. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal is a respectable source.Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, in general. But it's not being used a such, it's a being used for mention of company products as part of a lifestyle feature, not as a source of reliable information about the company. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indistinguishable from an advertisement, with no real sources attesting to notability. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Marjorie Gubelmann, the company's founder, in lieu of deletion. The coverage I found about the company (such as this article in Haute Living titled "Scent of a CEO: Marjorie Gubelmann’s Vie Luxe") are primarily focused on Gubelmann.
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect per the above.Catorce2016 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Marjorie Gubelmann.4meter4 (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2019 (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 Roc Nation. Anyone interested in merging can take the info from the revision history So Why 18:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EQ Distro

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

Not independently notable outside of its parent company. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Roc Nation.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge any relevant information to Roc Nation. I don't see how a redirect makes sense in this instance. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON or perhaps WP:NEVER. Wm335td (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2019 (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. So Why 18:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faigy Mayer

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

Article doesn't establish notability, not independently notable, no significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her death is tragic, all the coverage of this app developer came specifically after the suicide, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. The death itself did receive some coverage, especially in regards to her break with the Hasidic community and the possible depression that stemmed from that, but sadly many people take their own life. StonyBrook (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Article Author) I see the topic has been covered by various leading publishers including Business Insider, KTLA. The search result of Faigy Mayer shows her being reported in many reliable sources independent of her. She was featured in a National Geographic documentary. I have added a few references and hope they would help Abdul.kanchwala (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without having seen the documentary (I wasn't able to find a link to it), my understanding is the coverage was on account of her break with her religious upbringing; but that aspect of her life is not the basis for her purported notability as written in the article. Her main role, as an entrepreneur, was hardly noticed before her suicide. StonyBrook (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per StonyBrook.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC; notable for the *combination* of origins, gender, work and death (note also death of sister a few months later). Plenty of WP:RS; with international reportage. Significant case of OTD. Not clear why WP:NOTMEMORIAL is being cited here, no evidence to suggest article author has link to subject of the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (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. Clear consensus to Keep, even after re-list, that was not refuted. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Baraca and Philathea Union, Incorporated

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- The main source is an encyclopedia, presumably a RS. It may have been significant a century ago, but is clearly now defunct, which archives deposited with a Seminary (which presumably considers the archive significant). With a defunct organisation, whose heyday was probably 70-120 years ago, the lack of mentions on the Internet is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If other published encyclopedias (including old ones and specialty ones) covered a topic, wikipedia should to.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per 4meter4 and Peterkingiron. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BORN Group

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

Promotion for non notable business. Awards are not major. This article is bombarded with sources they are largely churnalism. Routine, listings, primary, press releases, passing mentions. "provides system integration services, easing the adoption of complex systems by e-commerce vendors". That gobbledygook is not supported by the two sources used. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: buzzword-laden advert for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 5 November 2019 (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. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Harvey

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor, lacks in-depth news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources for her research into queen bee syndrome, but they are all based around interviews (which don't count toward notability). My question is, does the extent to which they're based around interviews overwhelmingly count them as only an interview and not count toward notability, or does the independent prose interspersed with the interview material count them toward notability? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Undisclosed paid editor"? On what basis? No-one has suggested it on the editor's talk page, or asked whether they have a WP:COI. It's not a phrase to be thrown around lightly. Yes, it's this editor's only contribution, they worked on it in their sandbox and then copied that into a new article, but that doesn't prove they are paid editor. Ask them about COI first? And leave them a welcoming template: WP:AGF. PamD 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, I am not sure if I am smart enough. But it is 1,000% paid editing from a big sock farm. It was a proper planned perfect execution, the biggest hint I got with the photo, a private, nice high quality photo uploaded on commons from flickr. So first, a new flickr account created in October 2019, Photo was uploaded on flickr on 15 Oct, uploaded on commons on 17 Oct, page editing started on sandbox from 10 Oct, made over 10 edits, got auto confirmed account and moved to mainspace on 21 October with no errors. Who can do this without knowing everything about Wikipedia, a new editor or someone who is super-expert in it? If you want MER-C can elaborate it even better, who is best among all admins in this. Meeanaya (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources Pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEXIST.--Wakowako (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wakowako, can you please share 3-4 in-depth news articles about her that you are talking about? Just check that the news articles you share are not just mere mentions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, as they can represent "the world at large" taking notice of a person. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hello Meeanaya, fyi, i haven't shared articles. But those references clearly counts WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent reliable sources thus deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. --Wakowako (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she is notable for anything then it appears to me that it is only for her research into queen bee syndrome, which has numerous articles from reliable sources. However the degree to which those articles are interviews, or focus on her paper rather than on her, makes this difficult for me to judge her notability based on sourcing. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 November 2019 (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. No new input to resolve the divisions from before the last relist, and it's not clear whether the nominator (who seems to have attempted to vanish before being indeffed) still supports deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Oliver

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

Non-notable. Single reference -BigDwiki^talk 04:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 more sources, I'm not saying they're enough: [8][9][10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more: [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. He was the editor of the New York Daily News, but apparently didn't distinguish himself. The New York Times obituary I'm going to dismiss as local coverage, as no other paper published one AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2019 (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/2019 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources were found by G.G.S. above, refuting the basis for this nomination. Also it appears the nominator attempted to withdraw this (before being banned 14 minutes later). ―cobaltcigs 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if the sources that have been found were added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local obituary from the same industry does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 13 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RedRover

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

Only 1 reference works for not very notable website Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - "References not working" is not a reason for deletion. Seems to pass WP:GNG with the sources currently listed in article, *New York Times Article, *TechCrunch and *CoolMomTech. CBS527^Talk 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC) After seeing Hydromania's comments and reading the updated WP:ORGCRIT, I'm convinced with the exception of the NYT article, the other sources are not strong enough to support keeping the article. CBS527^Talk 03:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see significant coverage, though I cant access the NYT article. I'd like to see something more than "this site has been launched." The article itself has no significant content.Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article, "Devoting Attention to a Child and a Phone, All at Once", is a 500+ word article about the RedRover App. There appears to be more than enough information in the references to expand the article. CBS527^Talk 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking for sources I've found: NYTimes, TechCrunch, Digiday, and a few mentions at CoolMomTech, the latest here.

The NYT article and-to a lesser extent-the techcrunch article are reliable sources and count toward N. GNG/SIGCOV doesn't specify an exact number of sources necessary to pass so these two, plus the less notable Digiday and CoolMomTech sources (which seem to be closer to blogs?) might work. However WP:ORGCRIT pretty much means "apply GNG extra strictly", requiring a stronger level of independence in the sourcing (specifically calling out blogs) and in the depth of coverage (note that the newest source we have is from 2013, the rest are from 2011). That and the fact it's an out of date stub (note that according to CoolMomTech the app has significantly changed direction) tip me into Delete. Hydromania (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and the creator most definitely had a COI. see Special:Contributions/Blipus. Hydromania (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2019 (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}}

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career

[3] ttps://chartmetric.io/

[1]

[2]

[3]