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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Genovese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Still no evidence in the article that supports this person is notable (WP:BASIC). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jessica Bendinger a notable writer researched the subject for 4-5 years for the podcast she co-presents which is therefore a reliable source with a dozen or more episodes, also coverage in historic newspapers and LA Times already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the LA Times article, there's only blog-based folklore. This is not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:PERP. The LA Times article offers little to no information about her history against Vito or her supposed involvement in the queer community, which is only mentioned, not described. BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Also just because a podcast is being conducted by a notable person does not mean the content itself is notable, see WP:INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the podcast is researched and written by a respected notable writer then it has strong claims to be a reliable source and there is also historic newspaper coverage,imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Still not enough to convey its notability per INHERITWEB - very little coverage on the podcast to show supposed notability. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITWEB discusses the notability of a source on the web. That is not relevant here. What matters is whether the source is, in this case, sufficiently reliable. A reliable source need not be notable. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant when you're trying to make the argument that she is notable just because she is in some podcast by a notable person that has very little coverage. Further, that LA Times article, the only reliable source in the article, is talking more about the podcast than it is about Anna, neither of which have enough coverage to have a stand alone article. This article along with the newspaper clipping that takes up a small portion of the paper do not provide sufficient evidence, or substance, that would warrant its own article outside the two sentences that could be written at Vito's, per BASIC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source does not have to be popular or notable it only has to be reliable, for example an article in a scientific journal by a professor may not be popular or notable but it's still reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And what I'm saying is, is that there are not enough reliable sources that prove to verify substantial info (BASIC) beyond the fact that she has testified once or twice against her husband and was a hostess at a gay bar (non notable) - all of which can be said in two lines at Vito Genovese (as I have already merged the small amount of verifiable information to his page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a podcast about a person is not a book, and thus does not create automatic notability, and there is no other notability criteria covered. The fact we lack a birth year to me argues against the reliability of the article and that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Atlantic306, there is coverage in contemporary newspapers - over 800 results on Newspapers.com. It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article - but it is clearly quite incorrect to say that there is only a podcast and an LA Times article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com requires a paid subscription and there is no indication if those sources are substantially about her, or just mention her in passing while talking about other things that are the main topics. Still not enough to meet BASIC or PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com (although actually it is possible to get one through Wikipedia). The sources can be clipped so that non-subscribers can view them. What I meant by "It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article" is that I will read the newspaper articles, find the ones that are substantially about her, and add them to the article. You cannot say yet that it is not enough to meet any notability guideline, as the sources are not yet there to assess. Note that I did not !vote, I just commented about the existence of newspaper articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a lot of work - are you willing to do it - is anyone willing to do it? If the articles are hard to access for the general public or wikipedians, it will be difficult to verify the info. These articles are from the 50s - the clippings I've read that are accessible so far barely mention her involvement in the gay bars (or mention that she is waitress, not a supposed owner - which is not notable). Other than that we have the event where she testified against Vito. A single event. Barely notable - if at all. Perhaps the article may be better suited for the WP:DRAFTSPACE until it shows that it can meet notability guidelines (which I still really don't think it can). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently do it for articles brought to AfD, to check whether and then show that the subjects are notable. The sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that would be good if you could find sources to make it meet guidelines - however, until then, if it would take you a while, this article should really be moved to the draft space until it is ready, if it does not get deleted that is, as it is in shambles right now with regards to its writing style and sourcing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought it to AfD, it should not be moved anywhere until there is a result here. If consensus is to draftify, then it will be moved to draftspace after the AfD ends. I hope that this will be relisted, as it has been listed for only one week so far, with one Keep !vote - there is certainly not consensus to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it does not get deleted (which I still think it should for the record) - it should be moved to draft until it can be demonstrated it actually is a notable subject (which I still don't think it will be after scouring your news articles for the reasons I stated two posts above). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. It will be up to editors who participate in this discussion to give an opinion about whether the article meets notability guidelines and should be kept; does not meet notability guidelines and should be deleted, or merged, or redirected; or has potential but is not ready for mainspace and should be moved to draft. Then the closing editors will assess the consensus. If consensus is to keep, it will be kept. Until the AfD is closed, it needs to stay where it is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however, if the consensus here is not to delete, the appropriate move would be to draft it until it meets guidelines - as is something that is done when the topic may have the potential to be notable, we just don’t know yet or it will take a while to get it there in terms of time. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Per WP:AFDFORMAT the course of action is usually in the form of '"Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect"'. Drafting is not usually a common action, however, per WP:DRAFTIFY, "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." If this article is really notable according to the potential sources you have seen, the amount of time you or someone else will need to get this article to meet the notability standards may take some time. That would be the intention of moving this to draft if it is kept, definitely not as a 'backdoor deletion', let me make that clear. I would be happy to have this article around if it was written properly and had the appropriate sources to meet notability criteria. A look at Caterpillar84's talk page shows this alternative route has also been taken by other editors for Caterpillar84's other recent creations: Draft:Don't Sweat the Small Stuff for Teens, Draft:Hey, Look At Me! I Can Be. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there's some reliable sources that she owned the Stonewall and other legendary LGBT nightclubs in NYC. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She played an important role in LGBTQ history and has a close association with Stonewall, a national monument. Here are some additional sources of significance:

1. "THUG'S WIFE TESTIFIES; Mrs. Genovese Tells Pier Board of Gambling and Kickbacks". The New York Times. May 19, 1955.
2. Phoebe Letts (October 5, 2019). "The Latest Audio Buffet.(The Arts/Cultural Desk)". The New York Times. p. C4. (here her importance to the history of the Stonewall riots and the history of the Gay Rights Movement is highlighted)

In my opinion she passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources discuss Anna's role in the gay community or owning a gay bar or the details of the court hearing - all it ever is is a one sentence mention of her. Then you show another source that mentions the new podcast. This is an oral account - speculation not supported by sources that substantially demonstrate her notability beyond the occasional mention. Is this really what makes someone notable now? A mere mention in a few articles and a non notable podcast? What really is her "importance to the history of the Stonewall riots" - if she really was important she would be mentioned there - those sources do not explain this supposed importance. The NY Times source is also in their blog section which isn't a particularly good source per WP:NEWSBLOG. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT blog is one of the most reliable news blogs around and this isn't an opinion piece and the podcast double series is by a notable writer who spent five years researching the topic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the blog itself, however it also offers little to no info about the contributors to the podcast - ie it does not mention the backgrounds of these authors or that they "spent five years researching the topic". Again, this is INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the LA times source, and see that's where you are getting that info about the years researching the topic - although the number of years isn't super clear since all it really says is "five years ago found a cache of letters while cleaning out the storage unit of a recently deceased older friend." This is the only research they discuss. Notable? You can research any topic you like, that doesn't make it notable. They also write, "researching gay nightlife of the 1950s that Bendiger and Seligman first stumbled onto the story of Anna Genovese". The nightlife is the subject here, not Anna. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit wikilawyering Vaselineeeeeeee. Look at who the author of the blog is and the authority lent to the blog by virtue of who is sponsoring it. Further, the first source was just to show significant coverage in another part of her life. I didn't' say the first source was to support her activity in LGBTQ rights.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that that wasn't a great use of NEWSBLOG (scratched) - I had looked at who the author was and couldn't find any info on the person, although knowing NY Times is a good source, I assumed their blog would probably be alright, but still not the best source out there as it does not provide any substantial or useful info related to Anna Genovese anyway. Other than that, I wouldn't say "being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines" is wikilawyering. The point is, is that she is known, relatively, for one event that involved testifying against her husband (where neither are notable enough for its own article outside of Vito's article), I disagree with you that the sources demonstrate significant coverage (to me they do not - ie several sources that show the outcome of this testimony, and thereby any supposed importance of this testimony other than just than the fact that she did testify and what monetary compensation she was seeking for her husband). Even if she was the first wife to testify against her husband, let's say, this is still not notable enough because she is not the subject of that testimony, Vito is. Then we have her supposed gay community importance (which is a BIG claim that needs solid sources), that is largely undocumented other than some oral accounts and mere speculative mentions of her in a couple sources is also not enough to meet BASIC. I know you didn't say the first source - that's why I said it was the second source that you said talks about her supposed importance in the gay community, and brought it upon yourself to connect her with the Stonewall riots, which the source does not mention, and even if she was mentioned in sources as part of the Stonewall riots, it is the event that is notable not her. Don't try to make her sound more important than she really was. Keep in mind, I do not have paid versions for these sites, so I am going off of what is barely legible in the newspaper clippings and sources I can find in books and through Internet Archive. If you provide any other sources that can address some of the concerns I made above, please provide the quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, may I suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: My goal isn't to get you to change your !vote, it's to show that there isn't enough verifiable evidence, to satisfy the basic guideline of WP:BASIC, in that showing this subject is notable beyond the couple notable sources provided that do not substantiate any aspects of her collective life (can't ignore evidence that is not available). So when people bring up sources that still do not convey evidence to warrant this subject an own article, I'm not going to not comment on it, and when people reply to me, I'm not going to not reply back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NEXIST meets GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The New York Times believes the pod cast about her is notable enough to write a review about it [1] as are others [2]. The LA Times gives her significant coverage [3]. She seems to have played a notable role in a historic event. Dream Focus 22:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG per sourcing. Per third party reliable sources. Plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ugh, this is disappointing. Per WP:PERP "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". The only thing that makes her remotely notable is her involvement in one trial - her testimony against Vito. This can, and is, easily incorporated into Vito's article. A trial of a woman divorcing her husband or being a waitress at a couple gay bars, mixed with speculations about her sexuality, does not make her notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Running gay bars on behalf of a gangster Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Running vs being a waitress is disputed in sources, none of which really matters anyway because so have hundreds others, all of which are not notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lightburst and BabbaQ: Mind pointing to how those conditions are met rather than just arbitrarily stating they are? These are some of your WP:NEXIST sources available, provided by User:RebeccaGreen/sandbox: "82 Club [140], [141] ; divorce case, mother, home, lush living, alimony [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]; neighbour of Mrs Roosevelt [147]; on census etc at Ancestry [148], [149], [150], [151]." WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (also see follow up example about Martin Walker). Tell me how GNG is passed? Being mentioned as a bar worker, in a divorce case, a mother, living lush and being a neighbour of Roosevelt and being on Ancestry (not reliable [[4]]) classifies a notable person now—but hey they're mentions in a couple reliable sources, so she's notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note:@Vaselineeeeeeee: pity the closer who has to weed through this bludgeoned AfD. Apologies. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note:I'm trying to have a discussion, which you seem to be against. Note Lightburst's inability and/or unwillingness to defend/discuss his simple, unsubstantiated claim. WP:NEXIST is not satisfied per outside existing sources found that still do not substantiate this person's notability beyond mere mentions and non-notable events per GNG, BASIC and PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Look at this record on this AfD and tell me a casual observer wouldn't consider your involvement WP:BLUDGEONING at this point. I suggest you take a step back and let the editors state their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a case of whether Anna Genovese meets notability guidelines. Perhaps I've commented too much, (pointing to the history is unfair and unrepresentative though as much of those edits are stylistic) however, when editors such as yourself unsubstantially claim they meet notability guidelines, are we not to show reasons, quoting the guide, of how they do not? Are we not to respond to fellow editors who respond back? At a RfA, are votes not taken seriously when they are not backed up and are called upon by other editors to expand on their vote? Lightburst, I am not trying to get you to change your vote, once again, I am simply trying to understand why you are not willing and/or able to defend/discuss your simple, unsubstantiated claim if this article actually meets the guidelines you have mentioned, when the sources mentioned here and researched by other editors and Rebecca do not appear to do so as I have shown above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, I see that you found the sources I have saved in my sandbox. They do not constitute the totality of sources on Anna Genovese. Nor have I saved the Ancestry search results in order to include them in the article. Searching Ancestry and similar databases is WP:OR, apart from the fact that census returns are primary sources and may not refer to the same person. What they do give me, and the reason why I search on websites like Ancestry, is more information to use in searches of secondary sources. Searching any database, whether it's digitised newspapers or Google, does not immediately bring up all possible results - in digitised sources, sometimes the OCR fails, and in Google, perhaps it's their algorithms, I don't know. Providing more information in the source, or using other search terms, can find results that are otherwise missed. Please do not use links I have saved in work in progress to argue about a subject's notability - there is a reason that I have not (yet) added them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, Atlantic306's initial argument is WP:SIGCOV – 4-5 years of research by a notable author on the BLP subject, brocast via a podcast series sponsored by the New York Times, a WP:RS/P. In addition, RebeccaGreen's, and other, references also support broader WP:GNG. There is certainly no consensus to delete this BLP (I was almost tempted to close it myself on that basis), however, there is also a clear consensus that it passes WP:BASIC as a Keep. Meeting WP:BASIC is not a legal concept, it is the consensus of a collection of Wikipedians following guidelines (not rules), as to what constitutes sufficient RS that can support a subject's GNG. I know that Vaselineeeeeeee has worked hard on this AfD, but they should listen to what other experienced Wikipedian's are saying – I have been there myself (many times); you go in with one view, and it gets completely turned, but that is what makes it interesting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: I'm still not convinced SIGCOV is satisfied because the 'significant coverage' are mostly non-substantial mentions, mainly for one event, mixed in with speculation about her sexuality and running a gay bar, which are non-notable, but I do respect your response and view. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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