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

Hayk Gyolchanyan

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

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Armenia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, Russia, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Roth (Government official)

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

Subject clearly fails NPOL and a search for sources yielded nothing useful. Bar for GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the above appears true this may be the same subject as discussed in this article/report, about being inducted into the New York State Senate Veterans Hall of Fame. This, on its own, likely doesn't confere notability but may give further avenues to pursue when looking for notability (such as their military career). Emily.Owl (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere close to significant enough coverage. He's not an elected official. A deputy mayor, even of the greatest city in the world, isn't automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sperry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria for entertainers per notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO), and the article lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to also be a WP:PROMO article written by a possible WP:SPA. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T. Frederick Candlyn

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

Organist and choirmaster. No significant coverage in secondary sources and I don't see how his role at St Thomas Episcopal makes him automatically notable.

Worth mentioning that even within the limited category of organists who took an external music degree at Durham University, Candlyn does not compare that well to others e.g. I don't think he was ever a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists, a full professor of music, or the recipient of a government award (like Order of the British Empire, or an American equivalent) Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Tor

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently in the article are primary to clubs Tor played for, and a WP:BEFORE only found some passing mentions in routine match coverage. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Nigeria, New York, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus O. Shivers

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

He was president of the American Thyroid Association for 1 year (standard term) but I can't find any policy or discussion suggesting this would confer notability viaWP:NPROF. There doesn't seem to be much out there besides mentions confirming that he gave a presentation or went to a conference, and I can't find anything about notable publications / major contributions to the field / prestigious associations or the like. I don't think he meets WP:ANYBIO either - very sparse independent sourcing and he has no entry on the US national biographical directory. withdrawn Zzz plant (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Colorado, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think WP:PROF is very well targeted at academics from those times but there seems to be enough in-depth published coverage of him, already listed among the sources in the article, for WP:GNG (which requires only depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources, not listing in a national biography). The Mississippi and Colorado profiles are both independent, and the Mississippi one at least has some depth (I can only see a snippet view of the Colorado one). I suspect the Journal of the International College of Surgeons is also in-depth, but again I can only see a snippet view. Even the listing of society presidents has some detail about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPROF 6 for the Thyroid Association, of which he was apparently a founding member as well as eventually president. Jahaza (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of an elected association of fellows indicates he was at the very top of his profession. Founding the society is again an indication at be top of the profession. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This person seems to just barely meet the qualifications of notability. Particularly with NPROF6. While I definitely would like to see more RSes here to further bolster notability, I think he does qualify for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, apologies I didn't initially see NPROF C6 but it's clear now - thanks to all above for their good points. I've never closed an AfD w/ speedy keep procedure, could someone help me out? Zzz plant (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the nomination withdrawn in bold so passing folk can see it. Its kind of lost in the text. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Increase Carpenter

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

Non-notable. No real claim to notability, most of the article not about subject. Almost all of the info on Carpenter comes from the first source, which is of dubious value. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If you find an old book source, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Barry (wrestler)

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

No notable independent wrestler. Worked mainly on regional promotions. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results. No in-deep coverage around him from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability for this indie wrestler. Please ping me if coverage is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG I don't care either way but I found this [1] is it any use? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since most of it consists of quotes from the subject himself. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's the best I could find so on that basis I will go Delete. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and let us hope he does not choke anyone. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Trees

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

Appears to be a promotional Wikipedia article JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is a standard Wikipedia book review, not an article. I've done a number of book reviews for Wikipedia, and the format on this is pretty close to how Wikipedia prefers those reviews. Here's an example: Ladies of the Lights. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. — Maile (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per Maile --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author. Wikipedia is not advertising-space. We have articles on significant books, not "reviews". This particular article is the typical publisher's back-cover content (short summary and a handful of glowing reviewer quotes) cast in Wikipedia format. Short of adding the price and sticking a discount label on it, I can't see how we could possibly make an article more promotional. More formally, my opinion is that a book is wikipedia-notable if it attracts lasting independent interest (i.e. something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange). Although I've no doubt about the quality of the book and its author, I can't find evidence of lasting independent discussion of it, merely listings in all the normal book sellers (amazon, abe etc.). I'd suggest handling the entire series in one article, or redirecting to the author. Elemimele (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books is the guideline for how to do this. And Walking Trees is within that. And, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are fairly new. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well, to be fair, I'm not that new, and I'm only attempting to follow the criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT. In this field, reviews in the first year of a book's life are almost always prompted by the activities of a publicist employed by the publisher, which means that although the opinions of the reviewer are independent, the existence of the review is not. Elemimele (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange If you're interested, there's a couple of discussions about this in WT:NBOOK archives 6 and 7. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With multiple reviews in independent sources, it meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage to meet NBOOK. Additionally reviewed in Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies (here) and Language Arts (here), along with quite a bit of coverage in Yearbook of the American Readihg Forum (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

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

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything to indicate a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [2], and 2015 CNN article [3], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [4]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG with WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS's mentioned by DaffodilOcean and also phys.org [5]. She may also pass WP:AUTHOR #3 for her book Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable by WP:GNG RocketDwiki (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Coppola (actor)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor and DJ with notable relations. I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to add. There are passing mentions verifying some of his roles. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Coppola family might work. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, why would you want to delete Marc Coppola's Wikipedia page but leave the other Marc Coppola up.
Marc is a 50 year veteran of NY city radio and would be the next oldest living male member next to his uncle Francis Coppola. Meaning he would also be the next Patriarch of the Coppola Family. Are you also considering deletion of his brother Christopher Coppola. Or his Father August Coppola? Why the attack on Marc? And all of a sudden?
Please explain. I would appreciate it and so would the Coppola Family to leave families members up. Jocristy (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the Coppola articles, perhaps Nicolas Cage. In answer to the question above, Wikipedia exists on reliable sourcing to verify its content. Not all sourcing is considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. On Wikipedia, Reliability is not inherited. I have spent a lot of time today trying to find what Wikipedia considers reliable source for this individual, and I only found two such sources. There needs to be more. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator). I have undone the addition of the textIsn't IMDB.com a reliable source? At least for the movies listed in the article to the top of this discussion, and asked the editor, Jocristy, to add it to the end of this discussion instead; this is because it had overwritten my original reason for nomination, which appears in the article for people with xfd helper installed. Tacyarg (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to overwrite. Accident. But I'm trying to put in sources that should be reliable. Jocristy (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't IMDB.Com be a reliable source, at least to verify the movie and tv credits? https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=marc%20coppola&ref_=nv_sr_sm And I found this recent article: https://www.thelist.com/1752088/francis-ford-coppola-nepo-baby-network/

Robert Leitz

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

It looks like none of the sources cited are independent coverage of the subject. Mostly interviews, press releases, company profiles, and even articles written by him. So many of the links are dead that I suspect this was written by Gen AI. Additionally, I found zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind, which is quite remarkable (in a bad way). Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Switzerland, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sources from Business Wire, which are press releases. Source 10 in the article is the only RS and the rest aren't helpful (and #10 isn't enough for sourcing). Even on .ch websites, not much of anything comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Article Concerns

Source Independence and Coverage

The article has been updated to address concerns about source reliability. Dead links have been removed, press releases and company-generated content have been eliminated, and independent third-party sources have been added. These now include reputable outlets such as Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, Basel Area, and Guy Spier.

Swiss Media Coverage

The limited coverage in mainstream Swiss media likely reflects the niche nature of iolite Capital and its international investment focus. As a boutique firm, its activities are more frequently covered in specialized financial and industry publications. Investments such as Bakkafrost and Jumbo Interactive have been covered in respected international outlets. Local acknowledgment is reflected in sources like Basel Area and Fundview.

AI-Generated Content Suspicion

The perception that the article may be AI-generated seems to have been driven by previously listed dead or weak sources. These have now been removed or replaced with active, verifiable, and reputable references. Itsallabout42 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic that a comment that mentions a "perception that the article may be AI-generated" was itself written by AI. Delete per Oaktree. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points:
Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:
a) "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.
b) "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.
c) "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).
d) "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.
e) "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.
f) "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.
Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points.
Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:
- "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.
- "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.
- "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).
- "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.
- "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.
- "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.
Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate would work fine, please do not use AI. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AI-generated nonsense sourced mostly to company profiles and interviews. The only two decent sources (in Reuters and the Australian Financial Review) don't even mention him. Couldn't find anything else to suggest notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:
Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.
Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).
"Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six "independent, third-party sources" you mention:
Forbes: see WP:FORBESCON, plus this is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject
AFR: article doesn't mention Robert Leitz at all
IntraFish: no byline, probably sponsored content, also just repeats the aforementioned FORBESCON interview
Fundview: promotional and mostly quotes from Leitz
MOI Global: these are an article and a presentation by Leitz, not secondary coverage of him
Guy Spier: passing mention, also says that Leitz is an investor in the author's fund and is therefore not independent
None of these meet the requirement of being significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which I do not see any indication that Robert Leitz meets. MCE89 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:
- Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.
- Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).
- "Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold.
Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sluice out the AI-generated crap (courtesy of now-indeffed Itsallabout42), and there's no actual there there. No evidence that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV, obvious WP:PROMO violation is obvious. Ravenswing 21:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That user appears to have been unblocked and is willing to learn from their mistakes. There are still concerns as mentioned above, but I would like to thank Itsallabout42 for their willingness to learn about the process. I hope they stick around and continue to edit on Wikipedia well after this discussion is closed. We always welcome new editors here with a positive attitude. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I especially need to point out that the sourcing is terrible. Forbes is the poster child for formerly respected media that has gone down the drain. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an easy call, as noted by the earlier comments. The subsequent response was inadequate and unsatisfactory. Not notable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Cammarata

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

WP:ONEEVENT, from what I can find, he has not done anything more notable than be the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There is a single independent reliable source, the Times. Every single source is original, or primary, or in passing, or self-created, or a violation of BLP, or all of the above. The link to the NYS OCA website in particular is a total BLP disaster combined with a doxing problem. For that reason, technically it is a speedy deletion candidate; at the very least it needs oversight attention. Substantively, he's not done anything more than a run of the mill lawyer. He fails every single criterion for notable attorneys. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t meet notability guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noël St. John Harnden

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

Promotional in tone and a clear WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG fail in my opinion. Aspening (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Aspening (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Cyprus, England, New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned article with weak sources, from galleries, press release and only one news post. Subject of the article is not notable. Notability is not proved. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist after BEFORE searching. The current citations do not establish notability with the exception of the review in the Jakarta Post, but that is not enough to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There are no notable exhibitions or collections in notable museums or national galleries that could be found. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jakarta Post source is the only decent one to establish notability. I couldn't find anything else during WP:BEFORE. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:BLP sourced almost entirely to "YouTube and EBay," commercial gallery websites, press releases, and 404 pages. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Quinlan (author)

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

Author and onetime political candidate. Doesn't seem to have received a great deal of coverage, and the article reads like a promotional bio you'd find on his website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG multiple trusted sources found.𝒮𝓎𝓃𝒸-!⃝
Keep per GNG. An article's quality is not a factor at AFD.--User:Namiba 12:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup, but the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3 as the author ofa significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has beenthe primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Reviews of Smoked in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, The LA Times (part interview), The Mail on Sunday, Entertainment Weekly and the Birmingham Post. Reviews of The Takedown in The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews and The Derby Evening Telegraph. Review of The Drop Off in The Australian. I haven't done a search for his other books, but I think those reviews are enough to pass NAUTHOR (although I'm not really sure how the subject could pass GNG...) MCE89 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs to be substantially rewritten, but the subject does pass WP:GNG. Leonstojka (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be substantial coverage here that would justify inclusion as well as meeting the WP:GNG. Therefore, this page should be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lobenthal

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

Non-notable art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per nomination, none of the sources indicates notability. --hroest 15:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the main RS is one NYT article. This is not enough to support notability and does not meet the WP:GNG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. He sounds interesting, and is a friend of a friend, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources 1 and 5 are by him, while sources 2, 3, and 4 are about other people. Paragraph one is about other people. Paragraph two is a drive-by. There is a lack of significant coverage about this person. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Petersen (businessman)

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

There doesn't seem to be any independent notability here, it seems like deleting or redirecting to Flexport would make sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Draftify~~ Keep: There exist some reliable sources WP:RS: [6][7] [8] and to a lesser degree [9] for some biographical information. The current article is bad and may be worth blowing up altogether (WP:TNT). A future article has potential. I'm also okay with Draftify as a result. I made changes and I think the current (stub) article is worth keeping. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC) – updated 01:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The entire article is riddled with unedited ChatGPT citations, everything needs to be double-checked for relevance and accuracy and cleaned up. It's bad, but not quite WP:TNT bad. Dandykong1 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like there are RSes to support inclusion but the whole thing has to be redone. There is enough notability to justify inclusion, but it would need to be spearheaded by someone who is willing to actually write it properly. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a major rewrite of the article. Please review: BuySomeApples, Dandykong1, Gjb0zWxOb — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does look much better. I wasn't sure if Ryan Petersen is notable outside of Flexport since all the sources seem to be about the company, but if consensus is leaning towards a standalone page for him I'll withdraw this nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think this constitutes an improvement and the sources seem solid. I am willing to withdraw and/or amend my vote here unless there is someone who thinks I am missing something here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flexport. jp×g 🗯️ 04:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion is split between Draftification and Merge/Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Flexport: Source and target are short enough and while notable, have significant overlap. Komodo (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a bad idea in my opinion. There shouldn't be personal biographies in company articles. The subject has enough independent coverage for its own article.--Afus199620 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE

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

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT per nom as a repeated (racist) hoax. No doubt someone finds this funny, but there is no place for such things on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources don't support claims. SPONGE was a racist inside joke. Article clearly a hoax. Draco phyllum 23:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @InvisibleUser909, Chiswick Chap, Czarking0, and Dracophyllum: Could we pump the brakes on the claims of this being a hoax and exhortations to protect the page from recreation? A previous AFD resulted in the article being kept, based on the book source (which does not treat the group as "fictitious") [10], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [11][12]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [13][14][15]) and a Google Books search reveals even more potential sources. I'm not certain any of that means the article should be kept, as a slang dictionary refers to the group as "more notional than real" and one of the NYT articles above states that the group "has no office or headquarters, no constitution or charter, no officers or recognized leaders, no regular meetings, no staff and no agreement on what constitutes membership," but it at least deserves a more detailed discussion than what has taken place so far. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPONGE was definitely a racist in-joke, per:
- Its name had long been an in- side joke among neighborhood whites and played off their belief that blacks were “sponging” off the government at their expense. – The Ungonverable City
Evidence for SPONGE as an organisation comes mostly from a small (<100) group of white (mostly Italian-American) youths who adopted the name. They got in the News when they: "battled members of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) who were protesting the lack of opportunities for blacks at the World’s Fair."
A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. Per one of the news articles:
- Sponge the "organization" that jeered at Mayor Lindsay in East New York Thursday night and later staged an antiNegro demonstration that provoked a reply in gunshots, beer and soda bottles really is not an organization at all."
It is even clear that each action is from the same group? The name was spread through many different circles and communities. SPONGE at most deserves a few sentences in an article on Integration or racism in the period in question. Draco phyllum 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. That has nothing to do with any notability criteria. Notability will depend on whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + Salt - per above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not salt and weak keep: Folks, just search the term in Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. There is a lot of coverage about the topic in reliable sources. I'm fine with deciding that the current article could deserve WP:TNT, but I'm really against salting here, since it's conceivable that someone would write a good article about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less where I'm at too; it doesn't make any sense to salt the page, which is obviously not a hoax, and even TNTing it seems like an overreaction when the issues with it could be solved by rewriting it or possibly merging it with an appropriate target (I couldn't find a page on the riots the group participated in, but East New York#Economic downturn is one option). Right now my bold vote is Keep per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs work seems somewhat notable, with coverage in secondary sources such as [16], [17]. Got contemporary news coverage as well, [18], [19]. I do think it might make sense to redirect/merge somewhere else, but I don't think that outright deletion makes sense, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion after consensus has trended from "get rid of it totally" to potentially salvageable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable and salvageable. Obviously not a hoax. It's short and bad but so are many articles and it's not so bad as to be TNT worthy. There are tons of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [20] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
Ref 2 [21] Secondary source.
Ref 3 [22] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
Ref 4 [23] CV. Not independent.
Ref 5 Non-rs
Ref 6 [24] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
Ref 7 [25] Another passing mention.
Ref 8 [26] Passing mention.
Ref 9 [27] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [28] Not independent.
Ref 11 404
Ref 12 [29] The docket. Non-rs
Ref 13 [30] Not independent.
Ref 14 [31] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there's enough collectively to make the Keep grade. Looking in Google Newspapers archive the other day, there's some good usable stuff too. I can see that there was a good past attempt to make a decent article here, but it's set up wrong and some parts need to be re-written. That being said, I believe this has the making of a very good article. It just needs work. Because this is a legal-related article, it's a bit harder and for me it's a more involved kind of thing which I wish I had time for. Karl Twist (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy free keep !vote. Do you have WP:THREE good references that prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the quality of the sources has been challenged, if you're !voting "meets WP:GNG", it would be helpful if you pointed at the best sources and explained why they're sufficient. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In its current form, as I am reading the article, I agree that the sources could be cleaned up and that there is a lot that contributes more to verifiability than significance. That said, the Washingtonian source, combined with sufficient academic and legal analysis of his work available online (for example, by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other references in the current article), dissuades me from believing it is not noteworthy. Many cases that he has represented (and are cited here) are notable, and while that needs to be discounted for his passing mention, there are many of those examples that do end up adding up. WeWake (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked two attorney's on Wikipedia for a view for a clearer consensus. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to an attorney. He thinks the subject is notable and he gave me a very good reason why he thinks the subject is notable, which has cleared the way for me. I suspect the article will be full of references from obits when the man dies. Time waits for all folk on Wikipedia. Nomination Withdrawn as keep scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the vast majority of sources are reliable sources. A few references can be cut out, but overall the subject has significant coverage. While it's not policy and just my personal opinion, he passes my standards, because he's done enough for the legal community. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin' Out (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine that is apparently out of publication. Unable to find any sources discussing it. The single source that was standing to the article is to a website that was removed or otherwise blacklisted from archive.org, which is a red flag. Further, about the only thing I found on this publication indicates that its last article was published about four years ago. Probably fails other specific notability guidelines, but it's a clear WP:GNG fail. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Delete 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted but there was no need for that stuff on my Talk page. I didn't have any rude attitude towards editors at all. I did nothing wrong and was removing unsourced crap from that page. I was totally in the right dude. 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stumbled on this while doing spam cleanup (the home page has been usurped by the infamous WP:JUDI gang). Looking at the Wayback Machine, the site has been around for about 20 years. That's a long time. Surely there would be coverage about it somewhere, to write an article with. Today is AfD Day 7 (doomsday). Encourage anyone who has the time to really check around for sources. -- GreenC 15:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing just isn't there to support notability. Mondo Times seems to list every publication that exists and relies on company-submitted information. It only has 3 sentences of coverage and probably isn't a reliable source anyway. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now This one is kind of a bummer; going by their Facebook page it looks like they were an early business that died right at COVID because it served as more of a New York metro (more Jersey side specifically) events guide, a la the Village Voice but in the more suburban magazine form and with a focus on local celebrities. I know regional Jersey and NYC coverage is there, but it might be rare and more things like the New York Post picking up on a photoshoot or interview as print media usually doesn't cover other print media. Nathannah • 📮 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York

New York

Hayk Gyolchanyan

Jeffrey Roth (Government official)

Dan Sperry

T. Frederick Candlyn

George Tor

Marcus O. Shivers

Increase Carpenter

Dan Barry (wrestler)

Walking Trees

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

Elissa_Shevinsky

Marc Coppola (actor)

Robert Leitz

Joseph M. Cammarata

Noël St. John Harnden

Patrick Quinlan (author)

Joel Lobenthal

Ryan Petersen (businessman)

SPONGE

Paul Alan Levy

Steppin' Out (magazine)

Proposed deletions

Templates