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

Mavis Ma

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

This article seems to be written in a highly NPOV style, it almost reads like a political attack ad. I'm also not so sure this person even meets GNG and should not be considered notable through their brother(Although it is possible that I'm missing articles not in English). GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nom that the article currently documents too many "controversies" which potentially violates NPOV. Some minor incidents, such as the subject being scolded by her father in public or her endorsements of candidates, are totally UNDUE and can certainly be removed. However, I believe most content can stay, as much of the subject's political career involved dirty work, supported by numerous sources and opinion pieces like the one from Apple Daily by Neil Peng (source 33). Although NPOV is a serious concern, AFD is not cleanup, and I do not think notability is an issue for the subject. Currently, there are more than 30 sources listed in the article, with even more in the zhwiki one. I scanned through the first 10 sources, and sources 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 all provided SIGCOV on the subject and are certainly enough to pass GNG. Not to mention a simple Google News search can already yield many full articles about the subject, such as these articles from Central News Agency[1] and ETtoday[2]. I also think that her case regarding the violation of conflict of interest should be sufficient to meet WP:PERP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Refvem

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Absolutiva (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Friedman Agnifilo

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

This should probably be redirected to Luigi Mangione, as her only WP:notable action has been defending Mangione. So, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E most likely apply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:BLP1E to the article of the individual that the subject is notable for having represented. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Most references are trivial mentions, but this is a pretty lengthy 2021 article about the subject in the New York Law Journal, which seems like a reliable source by my reading of WP:RSLAW. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on Luigi Mangione. WP:BLP1E. Lack material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as she is only notable for one thing. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi Mangione. Procyon117 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems as though if she weren't involved in the case of Luigi Mangione, she would have only had inherited notability via her husband (hate to say it that way but that's how it appears). Perhaps in the future she will have independent notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With all respect to the nominator, I strongly disagree. Would you say that Johnny Cochrane defending OJ was not notable? This will be, and already is one of the most high profile cases in the entire world, and her name will be looked up on wikipedia constantly. Furthermore, she has plenty of independent notability before the case, with her working for the DA's office of Manhattan, working on Law and Order, and her popular podcasts. Those references have been added in. Please look at them. PaulPachad (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulPachad: Could you please provide independent reliable sources that provided significant coverage of Agnifilo that were published before December 2024? GoingBatty (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were added in. PaulPachad (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only trivial mentions of her before this month- there was no WP:SIGCOV of her before, just mentions of her or her podcasts in passing more or less.

As for Cochrane, he became notable because of the way he defended OJ, not just bcs he was the defense lawyer. If she become notable, we can revert the redirect- that's why I said it should probably be redirected, and not deleted, bcs her notability will be very ambiguous for at least some time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear @DoctorWhoFan91 If you google her name with the modifier "Before December 2024", you get dozens of articles that would qualify her for an article. Please look here, friends https://www.google.com/search?q=karen+friedman+agnifilo+before:2024-12-01&sca_esv=0abcab0091fd1269&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ADLYWIKOECi4pbSqwH6BXo6Farq5uIqUCw:1735248979949&ei=U8xtZ5rBOY-j5NoP8ZDG2Qw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjatq-YssaKAxWPEVkFHXGIMcsQ8NMDegQIBhAK&biw=1920&bih=911&dpr=1 PaulPachad (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot base notability on predictions about future events. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid losing the content in the event that the subject gains more notability in the future, draftifying is also an option. The current title can then be redirected. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect won't actually remove the page history, so there is no need to draftify it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, my bad haha. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep based on her notability on TV and other media prior to the Mangione case. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she was very independently WP:N before Mangione. She starred in the prosecution of Harvey Weinstein [3] [4] [5] [6] as the Chief Assistant District Attorney. Her reputation precedes her by a long way. There are many WP:V and WP:RS about her. IZAK (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just from skimming her article (which are filled with sources discussing her life and career before taking on Mangione's case), she:
"is a frequent legal analyst on television networks, including CNN and MSNBC"

"serves as a legal advisor for the television show Law & Order"

"worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for over 20 years, holding several senior roles"

"From 2014 to 2021, served as Chief Assistant District Attorney, the second-highest position in the office. In this role, she oversaw more than 500 attorneys and played a significant role in high-profile cases."

"served as General Counsel to the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice during Michael Bloomberg's administration."

"helped develop Manhattan's first Mental Health Court"

"co-hosts a weekly legal podcast and YouTube channel, called MissTrial, on the MeidasTouch network"

She's mentioned in numerous reliable sources before 2024, and appears more notable (and accomplished) than some of the people listed in [[Category:20th-century American women lawyers]]. All of that plus her taking on Mangione's case (which, in addition to giving her more national attention, is now giving her international attention) tips the scale in her passing the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Some1 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

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

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Library of Congress Magazine (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [7] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [8]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for Di (they-them): whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable or defunct or does not demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

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

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish that fraud and misprision, my two least favorite crimes, were crimes that would automatically make a perpetrator notable, but that has not been consensus since 2007. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Wikipedia for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article gained full notoriety, as it is an important case with a properly licensed work. It is not a template. It appears to comply with WP:GNG. so keep. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:BOLD strikeout as a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about him in reliable sources like Bloomberg, Newsweek, Miami Herald, NJ and National Law Review.Kwftnlf (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Firecat93 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While his case is covered in reliable sources, they mostly seem to be somewhat routine, nothing to me that really stands out. Quite a few sources are out there reporting on it, but I'm not sure if the content is enough for a keep. Procyon117 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[9] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[10] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[11] is not independent
[12] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[13] is a copy of a press release
[14] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[15] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[16] copy of a press release
[17] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[18] Summary of a press release
[19] Summary of a press release
[20] Summary of a press release
[21] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [22] [23] [24], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is any support for the suggested Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Paltalk: The Peerstream site now simply redirects to the Paltalk investor site and I am not seeing mention of Peerstream as a continuing product (though the main Paltalk site's Products link attempts a redirect to Peerstream). Whether as a company or a product, I don't see Peerstream as having attained notability, but a redirect could be a history-preserving ATD. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Templates