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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New York.

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[edit]

Brad Heckman[edit]

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

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Science in Global Finance[edit]

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

This appears to be one program for one university that does not seem to be notable in itself. Sargdub (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it unsourced, a quick google search reveals it isn't exclusive to one or two university. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Education, China, Hong Kong, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.[edit]

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

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

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

Mathematics education in New York[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levitt[edit]

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

Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (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/2024 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites. Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for edits and review citations.

i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.

pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.

much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)

much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?

honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ojalvo[edit]

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

So, paid creation (not undisclosed for this one, oddly enough, clearly they were blocked for a different creation), WP:RESUME and all that. Obviously, we also want to ask, is Ojalvo notable? From what I can tell, all the coverage seems to be "Ojavo, executive, says", "Ojavo, CEO, says". "Ojavo gets hired as CEO", that kind of thing. Honestly, the paid editor did a pretty good job of looking for sources here, I think the two Guardian articles are about as good as it gets, and I don't think I see any major omissions from the article. I did find a random podcast interview but that's not suitable for obvious reasons.

Now, Grammy would of course normally be an ANYBIO here, obviously, easy review, but the article... credits it to the Audible Studios program? (I don't think the program can win a Grammy? So it must have been awarded to Ojavo?) I don't usually speculate on these things, but being co-awarded a Grammy because they were an Amazon executive? Uh... I kinda doubt that was what people had in mind when they drafted that part of the guideline. I mean I guess it's technically possible to verify they shared it with Janis Ian, but... is there any plausible argument there's any coverage for this? I think it's a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy that we do eventually want actual sources describing this actual thing that happened (the first two AfDs I've found on similar cases B.A.M. and Eric Sullivan seems to support this).

Overall, I would support some sort of redirect, but they're not actually mentioned at 55th Annual Grammy Awards § Spoken Word, and well... I'm probably going to create a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushy (company) within the week as well (watch this space!). I suppose it would be a fine target for now, and maybe Audiobook Creation Exchange if it gets deleted? I don't think we need to pick a perfect target here though. I know this is extremely verbose, but there was a lot to get through. I might exceed the cumulative 500-word mark if responding to any concerns, I hope everyone is alright with that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMJQ-CD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with just two sources, MeTV affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha O'Kennon[edit]

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

Retired professor with single-digit number of publications, one with 24 citations on Google Scholar and all the rest less than 10, far from enough for WP:PROF. All sources are by her or from her employer, inadequate for WP:GNG. This was already draftified and restored to article space (by copy & paste) without any significant improvement; for draft history see [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mathematics, Computing, China, Michigan, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Record looks far short of WP:NPROF, and no other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She also does not meet WP:BASIC. I found one news article talking about art pieces she makes, and nothing more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search turned up nothing to meet notability on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing came up in a search that would indicate any sort of notability. Also of note, the article creator Davidpgca (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to writing articles on Albion College related people and topics, including a number that may or may not meet notability standards. nf utvol (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that, looking through images contributed by Davidpgca [2], all the images appear to be tagged as "own work". That appears to be true for very few of them (in particular, not for the ones that are 80 years old). Anyone know how to report at Commons? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that myself. I have gone in and tagged the items that are not clearly in the public domain for removal on the basis that this user is not the owner of the works. nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She seems to have led a neat life, but not one that rises quite to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 16:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citability data is quite low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC by a cricket yard. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo[edit]

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

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxiie[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two archived MTV sources (both a small paragraph each) are about all there is. I can't find anything now, 10+ years later. I don't think the singer made any critical waves; no album reviews, no charted singles. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is a mess.

Fireandflames2 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.
I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[3]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadarou Sare[edit]

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [4] and [5] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [6] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [7] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [8] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [9] is the subject's company's website. [10] is an advertising website. [11] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Astronomy, Engineering, Spaceflight, Africa, Ivory Coast, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the deletion discussion above, most links given are primary or simple confirmation of employment/biographical info. The sourcing doesn't pass RS guidelines and there isn't much else I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted per G5 as the article creator has been blocked as a sock of User:Daniel Martin77. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a blog post or LinkedIn. Haruka Amaranth 03:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Cassel station[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - the only source is a listing of all stations on the railroad and only gives it a few sentences. A redirect/merge to New Cassel, New York would be fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New York. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Thryduulf who deprodded. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from my deprodding rationale If sources cannot be found this should be merged or redirected, probably to the article about the line, rather than deleted. It seems the nominator actually agrees that this should not be deleted, so this seems like an inappropriate AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't have any strong opinion about whether the article is deleted, redirected, or merged (with what meager information is available). However, it seems clear to me that it lacks the notability for an independent article. Given that, I'm confused why AfD wouldn't be an appropriate venue for the community to decide which of those options is best. What would you have recommended I do instead? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD should be reserved for when you are actively advocating deletion. In other situations either boldly merge/redirect or start a discussion on the talk page (with notifications to WikiProjects and/or target talk pages as desired). Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happens is someone then shows up to contest it and say it's a "stealth deletion", so forgive us if we choose to take these articles to AfD. There's no way to avoid people complaining, so I'm afraid you will have to get used to seeing train stations at AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone contests a bold action, start a formal discussion. If they contest a discussion to merge or redirect as a "stealth deletion" then they're wrong to put it bluntly - you're not proposing deletion and you've (hopefully) advertised the discussion in the appropriate places. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the points in favor of AfD is people are notified far more than with any other method of merger or redirection. I always post notification to WT:TRAINS when I propose a merge, and unfortunately those discussions are typically ill-attended. I have been accused (by other editors, not you) of "stealth deletion" by boldy redirecting articles, even though I always respect a challenge and follow up by initiating a discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road): not notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~either New Cassel, New York, or~~ Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm striking part of my !vote. On further thought, it would be best if we kept any info about non-notable or marginally-notable stations in the page about the line itself. I see that KG613 has expanded the article, though, and am willing to re-evaluate my !vote. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Sorry for not getting to this earlier (I have been busy with job applications)-I found some more sources. I don't think this should be merged or deleted.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I really appreciate the added sources; unfortunately, it still doesn't pass GNG. Of the eight sources, seven do not provide significant coverage, while Arrts Archives is self-published and does not appear to qualify as a reliable source. Merging would allow the relevant information to be retained. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you are saying, 99% of all closed train station articles should be deleted and most open station articles should be deleted. While I really wouldn't like that, we should clarify what is/not notable in WP:STATION. What would qualify as significant coverage in your view? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: The relevant section of the notability guideline is WP:SIGCOV. Two different RFCs (August 2019 and July 2022) had clear consensus that train stations do not have inherent notability and are subject to the general notability guideline. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, then, based on those RFCs, are you suggesting that most station articles should be deleted, since it will be very hard to find info beyond what I found for this article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak to US stations in this regard, but no, I don't think "most" - or even many - should be deleted on notability grounds. As a general rule of thumb, any American mainline station that was open into the public ownership era tends to have sufficient coverage in newspapers and/or historical works to pass GNG. I've only ever found a few exeptions, such as Metra's Heritage Corridor Halsted station (which was redirected without loss of any information). Similarly, NRHP-listed stations and major pre-public-ownership stations tend to also be easy GNG passes. Collectively, those represent the vast majority of the articles we have about American mainline stations. There's only a relatively small number of articles like this that are unlikely to ever pass GNG, and most (like this) can be merged/redirected without loss of any pertinent information. This article is a particularly obscure station: it had a short life, pre-1900, with limited service. It is by no means representative of most other station articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations. I can't find any sources with significant coverage that would support a standalone article through Google or multiple historic newspaper archives, though a redirect to the list entry is appropriate. ^Complex/_Rational 17:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

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

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

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

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Forshee[edit]

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

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (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)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Discussion currently leans toward deletion, but a clearer consensus would be appreciated given that there has been an objection to deletion and thus soft-deletion seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [12], [13], [14]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNXY-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNYX-LD. WNYX seems to have some sources and common ownership that could be enough to not only justify keeping it from AFD, but the perfect article to merge into. --Danubeball (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Ryshpan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very trivial coverage found [15]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [16], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - This Montreal painter and engraver has an artistic background that deserves to be known. This biographical summary is well referenced.Veillg1 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community. It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST. Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST. The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability. See the essay WP:MEMORIAL. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG, the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[17]] and [[18]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. -2pou (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, and as such, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if any significant coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 World Figure Skating Championships per ATD and CHEAP. Let'srun and Bgsu98, can you get behind this? gidonb (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be a WP:SURPRISE and as such I do not support. Let'srun (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Let'srun. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just me or are there a disproportionate amount of articles here about ice skaters? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, the nominator PROD'd a lot of these articles, other editors thought it was rash and de-PROD'd them and now they have would up at AFD, all at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks for explaining. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Templates[edit]