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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:26, 3 January 2024

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York/archive

Purge page cache

watch

New York

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sal DiTroia

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NMUSIC. Article only references self-published sources. WP:BEFORE reveals one sentence on the subject in Richmond Magazine and a few passing mentions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Florida, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a marginal case. In addition to the Richmond Magazine article, noted above, I found a few potential sources, including American Songwriter, AllMusic, and Best Classic Bands. Arguably the sources are reliable, but an argument can also be made that they are not. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete. The sources posted by Bearian are quintessential passing mentions. I searched newspapers.com, EBSCO, and ProQuest. The only source with more than a passing mention was [1], which at least has some biographical detail about DiTroia, but its primary subject is the band. Not enough to push it over the line for me, but maybe someone else can find more. Jfire (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Bearian found the best sources in their BEFORE, they don't have SIGCOV:

[2], "He also started singing with a doo-wop group made up of Marty Monaco, Tony Giannatasio, Sal DiTroia, and Victor Eusepi."
[3], a list of credits, no details, nothing meeting direct and indepth SIGCOV about the subject.
[4], name listed in credits, "Others include Sal DiTroia on rhythm guitar, Diamond himself on acoustic guitar, Russ Savakus on bass, George Butcher on piano, Stan Free on Vox Continental organ..."

If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Montoye

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

No evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article provides no reason for us to think this person is notable; citing an article he co-wrote is of no help. Google Books proves he wrote a few more articles, some of which are listed in various bibliographies, but I have seen no discussion anywhere of this person, or any significant attention devoted to them. Note that we are here because the creator chose to ignore the concerns of other editors; they thought notability issues were handled, but I don't know what that's based on. So there's still a draft around, Draft:Robert K. Montoye, and they simply copied its content back into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of notability. Google Scholar also did not have to many citations for him. Royal88888 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SS Clarence

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

Non-notable steam lighter. Article is sourced to one period newspaper report about her wreck, with no details. Modern sources appear non-existent bar a blogspot post that describes the ship as "a barge-like vessel used to transport goods to and from large cargo ships". No significant coverage of the ship (or its wreck), and no identified reliable secondary sources. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable subject and no obvious route for improvement.--AntientNestor (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm closing this as a Soft Delete due to the confusion in the deletion rationale and the mispplication of WP:BLP1E guidelines which apply to BLPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Q

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

Not notable except for one event WP:BLP1E ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E, notable only for one event. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Question - I used to be fairly involved in deletion discussions but it has been several years. Why is BLP1E relevant here? Beach drifter (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Velissaris is the BLP1E subject here. We can delete that entire section too and solely argue on basis of lack of SIGCOV too ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at WP:ILLCON, as I do not see any sources that cover anything other than the crime. Beach drifter (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section can likely be removed per WP:COAT but agree with others that BLP1E would not apply to a company page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm afraid that BLP1E doesn't apply. Infinity Q was an enterprise. It isn't and hasn't ever been a living person.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the coverage is trivial WP:ORGTRIV. I get where the WP:BLP1E confusion came from since it appears that one person from the company was sent to jail for fraud but the way it's phrased in the headlines kind of blurs the two. It at least mixed me up for a second. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolTool SMS

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

Non-notable software fails WP:GNG, no coverage outside of local news. Covered only once in a Rochester local interest paper, and in a Rochester business journal. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Software, and New York. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sourcing simply isn't there to show this meets WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Only local coverage, and even that seems to be regurgitated press releases. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, and ask author if there has been coverage outside of local outlets? Maybe add a Template:Missing information?

WP:DNB

I'm a new editor and have been using this article to learn the "ways of Wikipedia". I see others commenting about local coverage and read the WP:GNG page to understand more. I did find an article here by a California company but it isn't a published informational article (like from BusinessWeek or something). https://www.parentsquare.com/blog/parentsquare-partners-with-mindex-schooltool-to-bring-seamless-communication-and-family-engagement-to-new-york-school-districts/

@MrOllie Thoughts? Lkl7255 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) — Lkl7255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not an article, that's a press release. They do not establish notability. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Democrat & Chronicle: Mindex's schooltool software turns 15 IgelRM (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NSOFT. And with all due respect to Democrat and Chronicle, a puff piece in a Rochester local newspaper isn't enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails to meet the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia; there appears to be a lack of significant coverage PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Rendering withdrawal with extent delete !vote moot Star Mississippi 20:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ford (technologist)

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

None of the sources given are 3P. Additionally, I'm having a bit of trouble finding 3P sources about this individual, seems non-notable. Sohom (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of articles published in Wired written by the individual, but nothing about this person found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've expanded the article with some additional details and various new references (mostly 3P). Ford is notable in his field (tech/design, and technology journalism). I do not know him, but I know his work.
Keep. Agree with above commenter - subject is notable in his field. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: (as nominator) Per previous commenters, article has been sufficiently expanded and notability has been sufficiently proven. Sohom (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejection Show

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

Not notable. No references. Fuddle (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources that easily could be come references (largely found through newspapers.com/archive.org): front page feature story in the Los Angeles Times A1 A16 (2005 and was widely syndicated at the time); fairly strong mention about it in an article about Matthew Diffee originally from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram [5] (2005); feature in the New York Daily News about the show in the context of a particular comic [6] (2005); nearly full page in Newsday about it [7] (2004). A first-party source would be book Rejected: tales of the failed, dumped and canceled by Jon Friedman, who created The Rejection Show, which has significant chunks about/derived from the theater show [8] (2009). All Things Considered did a story about and interviewed Friedman, probably in response to the LA Times story(?) titled "Commentary: Artists, writers and comics can present their rejected works at 'The Rejection Show' in New York City" [9] (wiki library link). New York Times three paragraph story about Valentines day talking about the show (with a couple of quotes from Friedman [10] (wiki library link) (2009).
I can't find any thing much more recent but that isn't really required for an article and the amount of significant coverage it received seems sufficient unless I'm missing something. Skynxnex (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Skynxnex. Toughpigs (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to WVBG-LD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYBN-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; little if any WP:SIGCOV. Translator WVBG-LD can be kept because that station has a storied history (it used to relay a PBS station). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be appropriate to redirect WYBN to the WVBG article or merge, given that this station's existence is needed in that article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WVBG-LD: WYBN-LD might be operated as the "parent" station, but it would appear to lack the coverage (in potential sources; not referring to broadcast coverage) the (older!) WVBG-LD attained in the past. I can't see any separate notability for WYBN; one article for the combined operation is enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shower Beers

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

Fails WP:BAND. Looked online and wasn't able to find anything that meets the guidelines for passing the SNS here. Also checked the newspaper archives and wasn't able to find anything. I will admit it might be hard with the band name to locate suitable material, if someone finds something obvious I missed please ping me so I can retract the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Hopefully beyond the cited references in Shower Beers' Wikipedia article, the below alternative sources meet criteria 1 in WP:Band. Happy to help further, thanks.

https://www.themicmg.com/post/one-more-shot-shower-beers-and-soso-serve-up-an-infectiously-rhythmic-new-single

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Shower-Beers-Recruit-SoSo-For-Pop-Punk-Anthem-One-More-Shot-20231109

https://www.audioangst.com/p/shower-beers2

https://www.buzz-music.com/post/start-the-party-with-shower-beers-soso-s-newest-hit-one-more-shot

https://www.punkrocks.co.uk/music-reviews/1554048_shower-beers-one-more-shot 100.35.137.206 (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delaware and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are a few more from notable outlets that are not as recent!

https://newnoisemagazine.com/bandcamp-of-the-day-shower-beers/

https://idobi.com/high-life/radio-uprising-39-avoid-young-culture-daisy-grenade-shower-beers/

Hopefully, these 14 sources help. I understand user-generated content isn’t applicable, but here’s a quick search of conversations involving Shower Beers from within the pop-punk scene over the last year as well - perhaps these provide enough notability within the music scene Shower Beers resides.

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/comments/18t352g/comment/kffzoio/

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5T4ctZoN4NbzrClh8wtEYR?si=efBmzzBtRSyRXUU1cHWFjg

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/comments/11icnfu/comment/jaxlkz5/

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4gOKa1hBLiS4tbq9fU7aRA?si=8nfPvmygRMyxn6s8p3J_bw

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/comments/18qdxkf/comment/keuzmlc/

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3jUCpTTjfdo7j7usfwaKeh

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/comments/12do04o/comment/jf7l60g/ 209.122.224.204 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the sources provided here at AfD I checked them. One thing that stood out is that they were all released within a day of each other and the sources appear to not pass to be used in establishing notability.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Mic Mag	~ Magazine is also a record label. It appears to have been a small publication at first and is not also a label	~ If a label is writing articles then I'm not sure if it can really be reliable anymore	Article is quite short but it is about the band	~ Partial
Broadway World	~ I wasn't able to figure out if this outlet was independent or just a PR outlet with a few legit reviews mixed in.	~ Came out one day before the Mic Mag article and both read very promotional	Article is about the band	~ Partial
Audio Angest	Site is really just one man Ian Roth	Site is hosted on substack and the article came out on the same day as the Broadway World article	Article is about the band	? Unknown
buzz-music.com	~ Not sure if everything on the site is user submitted or influenced	Site appears to just let you submit info about your band	Article is about the band	✘ No
punkrocks.co.uk	~ No editorial policy page, articles mostly appear to be authored by one person Oscar Manners	~ Lack of editorial structure makes it hard to figure out if this is reliable. Also this article was released on the same day as all the others	~ Article is quite short compared to the others, coverage is only about them but there isn't much there/	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; they don't yet meet the notability criteria. Maybe it's just too soon, but the sources that currently exist are dodgy. JSFarman (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've written a few articles on bands over time, and I'm afraid this one is not yet what I'd want to see for notability, e.g., a few profiles in mainstream newspapers. honestly i thought this article was going to be about drinking beer in the shower, but i checked out the music while searching, its quality pop punk.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just not enough sourcing as shown by the source table above, and I can't find much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL SUPERMAN

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

Has no citations to prove notability, and this seems to be WP:Original research. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went and tried to find something to support this article but wasn't able to. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and most of the information appears to either be original research or "information" from social media or other non-reliable sources. Searches did not turn up any actual coverage in reliable sources on this. Rorshacma (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty much established that the video itself is a hoax and I don't see much evidence that it is a notable hoax. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whatever this is, I've not found anything about it... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to zero sourcing provided to back the article's claims. TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing, definitely seems to be a hoax. The only outside link provided claims it came from a poster on 4chan, which is a notoriously unreliable website. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- "LOL Superman" lacks reliable, verifiable sources to establish the notability of the alleged video (WP:RS, WP:V). The content is based on hearsay, forum posts, and social media, which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable information. The subject is also potentially a hox (WP:HOAX) and fails to meet the genseral notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to the absence of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. (none)

Cray04 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom "LOL Superman" lacks reliable, verifiable sources to establish the notability of the alleged video (WP:RS, WP:V). The content is based on hearsay, forum posts, and social media, which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable information. The subject is also potentially a hox (WP:HOAX) and fails to meet the genseral notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to the absence of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. (none)

Cray04 (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glitched, and wasn't showing vote. Struck out the duplicate vote. Cray04 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to William H. Cade. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Salazar Cade

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A merge with William H. Cade should be considered. Geschichte (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Bill Cade and Elsa Salazar Cade Scholarship in Evolutionary Ecology exists: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/artsci/biological-sciences though not seeing much in terms of citations on https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Elsa+Salazar+Cade&btnG= and I'm not sure how important the National Science Teachers Association award is. I'm learning towards a merge with William H. Cade... -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William H. Cade. I don't think there's sufficient independant sourcing to warrant two separate articles. I've not looked into how notable her husband is on his own, and given some of the achievements are as a couple perhaps a combined article should be considered rather than a simple merge into his one. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with "Merge": Evidence of independent notability not established but as an aid to navigation it makes sense. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than Cash Alliance

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. CNMall41 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it may need serious revising. Google book search turns up copious references to this UN-based agency. Unfortunately, the article has been edited largely by COI accounts with a reliance on primary sources. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It not a UN based agency. I will look at the references. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the mentions turn out to be passing and lack in-depth coverage, I'll withdraw the 'keep.' Late tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and improve it I'm not an expert on this, but from what I read about the requirements for something to be an article, it needs "significant coverage" from sources that aren't connected to the topic. The ones I see that aren't connected seem like trivial mentions. SilverhairedHarry (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It is NOT a UN agency. Its own website even states it is "based at the United Nations" (being based there and being an agency of are two different things). Stating it is a UN-based agency is misleading in my opinion. The page states (unreferenced) that the United Nations Capital Development Fund serves as the secretariat, but I cannot locate any references supporting that claim either. I do find a few mentions in books, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I would vote for a redirect target since we can verify it exists. Of course, I would need a suggested target from others as I cannot find one. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source claims the UNCDF established the Better Than Cash Alliance [11], and devotes a few pages to it in chapter 5. Page 109 here [12] is a source for the UNCDF providing the secretariat and offices. Its aims are referred to here [13], often skeptically. Its findings are cited throughout this publication [14], and on pages 279-80 here [15]. Also noted here [16] and page 135 here [17]. These are just a few published sources from the first two Google search pages. There appear to be many more. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not seeing much evidence of notability. It is currently a COI mess. It can be recreated if decent sources are found. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Economic Development Corporation

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

One reference to their own website. Seems to have a lot of mentions in articles, but none go into detail. Don't know what their relation is with New York City Economic Development Corporation, if any. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and New York. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs some serious work, the group oversees some multi-million dollars projects that are somewhat important, and they have enough news coverage, but the author just chose not to include that. Scu ba (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nom convincing and this comment not convincing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on "nom convincing" and what part about my statement was not convincing? Scu ba (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that बिनोद थारू has been indef blocked for disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Lots of local coverage at silive.com, and some regional/national coverage of their projects (which I think is the crux of their notability -- the Skyway, tram, and other big infrastructural/redevelopment projects seem to get attention). It's not a slam dunk, though, and the water is muddied with a lot of local promotional events ("nominate an important local businessperson!" type stuff), but there's likely enough to squeak by GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage about the organization itself and as such the subject fails WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to have sufficient sources, though there is room for improvement. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Templates

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==New York==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sal_DiTroia}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_K._Montoye}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SS_Clarence}}