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[edit]

Peter Crocker[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO. It is difficult with things so long ago. Even so, I am struggling to see what makes this industrious man notable in a Wikipedia sense. He appears to have had a decent, unexceptional life, like so many of his peers. WP:ROTM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally done research on this topic as a professional in the field and can vouch for this page to be published, as is.

I’m confused as to what you mean by “unexceptional”. It’s as if you haven’t read the article, where it is mentioned that he was a postmaster, civil war veteran, trustee of Philippi School and city planner.

He was an early pioneer of Sarasota, Florida and is grouped in with his notable peers (A.B. Edwards, William Whitaker, and John Hamilton Gillespie) in various newspapers which I have provided citation to. The cemetery he established still exists and the church he built is on the historical register and owned by the historical society. Two other Wikipedia pages (Crocker cemetery and Crocker church) reference him as the founder. He deserves to have a page where readers of the other pages can find out who he was and what he did. When citizens of Sarasota go to learn more about their history it is important they have a resource (Wikipedia) to learn about this man and his contributions to the early community. A surplus of information is always better than a lack of it.

Your grounds for deletion, not "notable in Wikipedia sense," have no pertinent standing whatsoever. Htystudent (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the source already listed within the article, here is some verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support the claim of notability. Though, viewing these may be an issue since the database requires a subscription. The links look identical, but they are all individual articles that mention Peter Crocker.

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer Htystudent (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Church article was sent back to draft and the cemetery looks rather non-notable as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both Crocker Cemetery and Crocker Church were created by the same editor as this article, in the past week. Their existence on-wiki does not demonstrate anything. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but were they moved to articles for deletion? That means they were significant enough to still exist, so this page should be as well. Unless you think Peter Crocker did not make the standard for notability, which I have just demonstrated that he likely does. I will include that information in this reply as well.
In addition to the multiple sources already listed within the article, here is some verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support the claim of notability. Though, viewing these may be an issue since the database requires a subscription. The links look identical, but they are all individual articles that mention Peter Crocker.

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Htystudent (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent I have left you advice on your user talk page, Most people find such advice of value. I hope you do as well. On a technical matter, I was not allowed under WP:DRAFTIFY to return this to draft once more. My two options since I was not going to edit it were to send it here, or to ignore it. I chose to send it here for community discussion.

Any editor, you included, is entitled to offer Draftification (please place it in 'bold at the start of the line, and on a new line). The deletion discussion is a direct result of your moving it to mainspace before it was ready. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not averse to the outcome of this discussion being to send back to draft for further development. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot view any of the newspaper links to validate whether they include WP:SIGCOV. I agree that Crocker seems like a WP:ROTM individual, but without being able to view the sources I cannot weigh in with a !vote either way. I have not been able to turn up any other appropriate sources to establish notability. If the page creator were to request draftification I would support that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I have told them the same thing on their user talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Served in the army and worked in a lighthouse, this is not notable. Likely better suited to a local history website, I'm not seeing notability for our standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Investment Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find any independent sources that covers the fund specifically and fulfils WP:SIRS. There are some sources about the founder or about it launching but not really anything in-depth. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Capital Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Current sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Can't seem to find anything independent that really covers the fund in-depth right now. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Boldrin[edit]

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

Most of the references are either his own website or YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I have serious doubts about notability. He did get some coverage due to his opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but this looks pretty much like WP:INHERIT. HPfan4 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Economics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a PR item, but it suggests notability as a professorship at a major university [1], not sure if it passes PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the named professorship passes WP:NPROF C5. Moreover, the citation record [2] looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:Prof. Nom should study policy before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cannot find any independent sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on it. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.'s Securities and Exchange Commission registration: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/329643. I would disagree that it's a joke based on the registration. CacheOverride (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquebogue Windmill[edit]

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

Non-notable replica structure written in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. Fails the test of multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources. (The Bob Liepa article is the same article published in three different places, the Dempsey article does not mention this windmill at all, and the KDHamptons article is ineligible as tabloid coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage I find is strictly local, from the Suffolk Times about damage to the windmill. There seems to be no coverage outside of hyperlocal items, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) with Pantigo Windmill, of which this is a replica. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would accept a selective merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed the non-encyclopedic promotional tone. However, there is currently only one reliable source; plus the KDHamptons article. The latter is shurely tabloid, but here it's only used to proof that the mill can be rented, so tabloid coverage is sufficient. --Cyfal (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SBST: "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." That means there is insufficient evidence that this windmill passes the WP:GNG. No one's doubting the mill can be rented; we're doubting whether it meets the notability standards of this encyclopedia. I think the "merge" proposal is a good one, finding a home for the encyclopedic content in this article since it doesn't otherwise have standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maksud Agadjani[edit]

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

Non notable promotional article. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Azerbaijan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per absence of reliable sources. BD2412 T 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh dear. Hard delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wildly promotional and does not pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and promotional content.Sideriver84 (talk)

Nike Indoor Nationals[edit]

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

Also nominating Nike Outdoor Nationals (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Reviewed during NPP. All 3 sources are from the event's official website, and I found no sources online that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, New York, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~I agree that there are no good sources, and that its near impossible to find a reliable source talking about the Nike Indoor Nationals.~~ Turns out there are some good sources talking about it. A lot of @Habst's sources are about the Nike Outdoor nationals, but they still provided a good number of articles about the Indoor Nationals. The sources aren't really fully about the event specifically, but I believe they're still fine articles to use. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the event meets WP:GNG as an important prep athletics championship. Responding to the concerns by @CanonNi and @Coulomb1, there's plenty of independent coverage from The Washington Post, New York Times, The Post-Standard, MileSplit, The Journal News, Bozeman Daily Chronicle The Cullman Times, and many more. --Habst (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my links were for the indoor nationals – for the outdoor nationals, there's even more coverage from LetsRun.com, Track & Field News, The Santa-Cruz Sentinel, Eugene Register-Guard, MileSplit, etc. --Habst (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how this slipped past me. I have no problem with keeping this article then. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:NCORP as WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:TRADES publications or WP:ORGTRIV mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Templates[edit]