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:

1. 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.
2. 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

Brünnhilde (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [1] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [2]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Fabio De Sousa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. You forget to mention that this is a common birth name in Portugese-speaking countries that namesakes may be found, unless you've searched in combination with the person's name and clubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That is probably the only way to do a proper WP:BEFORE. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AEYE Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jms Brynt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

PeerStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [16] [17] [18], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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