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

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

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

The only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [1]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Slavutin

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

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Australia, and New York. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has about three papers that come up in Gscholar, not much of anything else really, mentioned here [2]. Doesn't seem to have made much notability for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are also largely redundant with lists such as List of high schools in New York (state) or categories like Category:High schools in Albany County, New York etc. I'd support moving this information to a category structure (High schools in NYSPHSAA class A, high schools in NYSPHSAA section whatever, etc.) but I don't think any individual section is notable enough to justify getting its own Wikipedia page. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sports. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association per WP:ATD. The content is useful and that article is short. It could contain the content; particularly if we were to restructure the information so it doesn't take up so much space. It's also not outside of the scope of that topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association. Not notable individually, but we should keep the info. Meters (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, despite the similarity in user names and the coincidence in timing, this is not a duplicate vote. Meters (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  insert the meme of Spiderman pointing at Spiderman here Apocheir (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just a list of schools. Did any of you actually look at New York State Public High School Athletic Association? Yes that main article shows the individual sections but by the time all the content from each of the sections is added, it will turn into a huge article. Essentially, the reason the Sections as individual articles exists is to PREVENT a huge single article. That is what is called organization of the information. The NYSPHSAA keeps their schools in organized sections of like sized leagues of schools for equitable competition. Showing the organizational structure is why these articles exist. Why shouldn't wikipedia duplicate their means of organization? To reduce the number of articles? Or are you wanting to eliminate information? That is not our purpose. We have the information. It reasonably reflects what exists now and can be edited to be kept up to date in the future. It is our job to report what exists. It would be completely irresponsible to merge and then not include all of the content of the eleven sections. Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't lose the organizational structure by merging the section articles to the main article. The lists of schools would still be separated by sections. And the lists of schools is pretty much everything that is in these section articles. Meters (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a 17 year history to back me up, I expect nothing but bad faith from deletionists. Maybe this NOM will prove me wrong. If merged, I might expect an incomplete list. If the full list is added I expect a follow up tag complaining the article is too large followed by efforts to sneakily remove the content without discussion. I have never seen a merge ultimately not result in a loss of content. The NOM already mentioned the overlap with List of high schools in New York (state) showing no effort to read the organizational structure is the major difference. So the next illiterate will follow up by just merging to that list and all structure will then be lost. Trackinfo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at further at the article, there are a bunch of the sections that have not been started. When those fill in, this will become much larger. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New York State Public High School Athletic Association. Separate articles for every sections is an overkill, but having some information about how sections work in the main article is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [3] [4] [5] [6], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[7]] and [[8]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E North

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

I see little sign of GNG or other notability. Note that I removed some text for copyvio and naked promotion, including the source [9]. (But this looks to me like a vanity piece, along the lines of Who's Who.) Noting that the tribunenewspaper.com source appears to be in a fake newspaper, or at least the main page is showing something generic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He’s a run of the mill plaintiff’s attorney. The “awards” he’s been given are not competitive. He has no record of law review/ journal, nor service to any bar association. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Bearian. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheleen Thomas

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

Too short article and also cited content doesn't enlighten the subject as a significant coverage.–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this singer, brief association with a song then seems to have faded away. Even the sourcing now in the article is slim... Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Solution, So Pure!'s other name, the band who had the charting single she performed on. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to her band, which is a very common alternative to deleting. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[10] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [11][12]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

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

This is a highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://thevillagesun.com/what-a-trip-union-square-travel-agency-cannabis-store-blends-quality-variety-and-education	The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject.
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/02/37131528/just-one-weed-dispensary-in-new-york-generated-5m-in-tax-revenue-in-its-first-year-and-created-1			Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV.
https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/cannabis-store		Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-downtown-brooklyn-union-square-cannabis-store-rebrand/	Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/new-york/news/15687880/union-square-travel-agency-a-cannabis-store-opens-as-new-yorks-third-manhattan-based-adult-use-dispensary-the-starting-line	Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/02/14/city-s-third-legal-cannabis-dispensary-opens-near-union-square			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.greenmarketreport.com/new-yorks-travel-agency-to-open-brooklyn-cannabis-store-under-licensing-deal/	Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://design-milk.com/union-square-travel-agency-flies-high-evoking-eero-saarinens-twa-flight-center/
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/05/38656031/new-yorks-the-travel-agency-opens-third-cannabis-shop-this-time-near-rockefeller-central-grand-c			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.brooklynpaper.com/the-travel-agency-dispensary-downtown-bk/			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-fifth-avenue-opening/			Dead link, not archived.
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-union-square-first-anniversary-consumer-insights-amy-sedaris/	Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject	Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team."
https://web.archive.org/web/20241109054547/https://musebyclios.com/cannabis/travel-agency-becomes-new-york-film-festivals-first-cannabis-sponsor			Dead link	A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/you-can-now-buy-cannabis-at-nycs-weed-museumyou-just-cant-use-it-there-102523			WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without giving an opinion on anything else, I think the source assessment table is wrong on the first source. The Village Sun is a daily newspaper in NYC and the article has a by-lined author by a on-staff independent journalist. That source is both clearly reliable, and independent, even if the journalist interviewed some of the people working at The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store. Journalists do fact checking and the paper has an editorial staff. That should clearly be in the WP:SIGCOV column as an accepted source under WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([13], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New York. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: [14] is definitely SigCov. This book also uses it as an example. (I also found 3 perhaps–slightly-questionable sources: funding, funding, research. I think the last source is unfortunately just a ton of trivial mentions. Depending on how one reads the "trivial coverage" part of NCorp, the funding ones may or may not be SigCov as they both have in-depth and independent coverage of what the company does.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references appear to be about topics separate from the subject, as stated above. I was unable to find additional references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis by Red-tailed hawk. However, I find the suggestion that it would be too difficult to edit the work and therefore we should WP:TNT ridiculous. The article is currently less than 1500 characters, making it technically WP:STUB length. How hard is re-working such a tiny article? We can totally fix it without much effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Templates