1875:, I wasn't closing the AfD. I was proposing (see the box above the edit area) "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion." Give me and other editors interested in the article 3 months to find additional sources. As I've already quoted, there is a guideline against putting a recently created article that can survive speedy deletion (a "hopeless" case) into AfD. For another article I'm working on, I've bought books and CD's. There is another Knowledge (XXG) guideline, which I've quoted, that says that initially, you and other editors interested in deletion should consider that good sources exist, even if they aren't present in an article. After awhile, I and other editors interested in retention have to find the sources if notability is challenged. I wasn't casting another vote. I was just high-lighting the word "keep". Anyway, the guidelines for AfD says the decision isn't based on counting votes. The box above the edit area says, "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The red triangle on the summation of my long arguments is improper because it is commenting on me rather than on the merits of the discussion.
1508:
performance, so it is not covered by your assertion. The two sources you provided: SS ("c") mentions ATB as a FB group in the first sentence. The remaining three sentences in the intro talk about the show. Of the five questions, two are about the show, one is about Julian's background, one is about Julian's
Broadway show plans and only on is about the FB group. The expert blog ("d"): 1st para.: funding a new musical is daunting. 2nd para.:possibility of crowd-funding as solution. 3rd para.: description of people involved in "Island Song." 4th para.: description of "Island Song." 5th para.: Time, place and ticket prices. The FB group is mentioned in only the first two paragraphs, as the source of funding and as the origin of the theatre company. The additional source: CG ("e"): 1st para.: time, place and ticket prices. 2nd para. 1st sentence: describes FB group. 2nd sentence: describes show.
1718:
numbers and popularity which will perhaps someday mean notability. It focuses on the crowdfunding which allowed two performances of Island Song. This is not notability; crowdfunding may be "the wave of the future" (Vyeh, above) but it does not mean anyone who engages in crowdfunding is notable. If All Things
Broadway perhaps had an original idea in this sense that made them notable, I would expect more than a few non-significant blog posts. Reading this post, it definitely does not seem like an independent, secondary source. It's full of puffery and ends the article with an advertisement of how to buy tickets, when the shows are, and ticket prices.
2156:(1) NCORP and the GNG are not separate rules. NCORPis the manner in which the GNG is interpreted when dealing with articles on organizations: it specifies more exactly what we mean by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . (Actually, in my opinion its provision always applied, and are in general applicable to all uses of the GNG--the guideline was established in order to clarify the rules for articles in a frequently challenged field, where there was special concern that standards were not being met.
2282:, your incessant and massively over-the-top and repetitive walls of text in this discussion are working massively against you. Please stop that, and for future reference, don't repeat this behavior anywhere else on Knowledge (XXG) if you want to be taken seriously. As it is, the subject seems to be merely an aficionado group that has performed a few times. Insufficiently notable for Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes, and even scrupulous searching fails to come up with sufficient
1085:, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
835:
English, not
Wikipedian, sense), while being a FB group or being a small theatre company that has performed in some small venues may not be. However, the real fallacy is that NCORG says a group has the option of meeting one of three alternative requirements. At a minimum, the nominator should have specified NCORG primary, NCORG alternative for noncommercial or GNG, both for my convenience and the editors at AfD.
1034:. It could also be used to support the lede (except for the number of members; since source "b" is a year older than source "a," I used the number from source "a." I probably would have used source "b" in the lede, when I continued working on the article.) I submit there is no evidence that the introductory paragraph was written by Eliyahu Kheel or anyone with a personal or financial relationship to
1658:
1552:
of a financial or personal connection between
Eliyahu Kheel, the founder of the theatre company and the individuals of the "BWW News Desk." The nominator says "further a's topic is not the production company but a play." The title of the source is "All Things Broadway Presents Carner & Gregor's ISLAND SONG at the Davenport Theatre Loft."
904:
Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
1587:(whom I've found very helpful in writing the article), I believe that the guidelines base notability on sources. If there are no sources meeting the criteria of the guidelines, then a subject is not notable, regardless of an editor's personal feelings. If there are sources meeting the guidelines, that indicates notability.
653:(or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including
2286:
coverage. Perhaps it is possible that this group may become sufficiently notable in a few years (although I doubt it). If you believe that may be possible, you might want to keep a copy of the article somewhere for future reference. I wouldn't count on it though; and it's best just to be graceful and
2008:
website says "All Things
Broadway has also recently expanded into a theatre company performing at the 54 Below, the Laurie Beechman Theatre and the musical Island Song at the Davenport Theatre Loft." It has produced three shows in 6 months, which is prolific for a theatre company. Notability is based
1990:
6. Interview with
Eliyahu Kheel. I am asserting that it is significant coverage, reliable and independent. I use the introductory material (which negates "simply") to support "Eliyahu Kheel founded the group" and Eliyahu Kheel's answers to support "He formed the group because his friends were annoyed
1490:
Both GNG and NCORG apply "significant" to coverage, not to a source. They exclude "trivial" coverage. WEBCRIT says, "... non-trivial published works whose source ...", which clearly shows the significant/trivial criteria does not apply to the source. I'm confused about "mild." Could you clarify what
1097:
Please note that I have done more than "merely asserting unspecified sources exist." I wasn't expecting an AfD, but I included a note in the edit summary to new page patrollers about a post in the article talk page citing WEBCRIT ("content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published
703:
provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.' Broadway World is a news article about the
2017:
is entitled to change his opinion after a more thorough examination of the evidence (and I applaud that he searched for sources), I am puzzled at how starting with the theatre company aspect rather than the group aspect would affect his opinion of the entity's notability. In both versions, it is the
1978:
4. markrobinsonwrites.com. You mentioned that it doesn't seem "independent, secondary." There is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Mark
Robinson and Eliyahu Kheel. The source is clearly not primary nor tertiary. You also mention "non-significant." With five long paragraphs
1698:
The sources, although they may be reliable, are not nearly considered significant coverage. Since being rebranded from a
Facebook group to a theater company by the means of it's Knowledge (XXG) article, I've been even more convinced in this subject being not notable. There really aren't any reliable
903:
Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works.
1966:
2. Show-Score.com. Both NCORP and GNG have the essentially the same requirements for a source used to support notability: (1) significant coverage, (2) reliable and (3) independent of the subject. I assert that Show-Score.com meets these requirements. I used the source for (1) the songs that Julian
1920:
is notable, I believe you go too far in asserting that my arguments are not "supported." I have cited
Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines, providing links and quotes, following the guideline in the box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than
1551:
has only expressed an opinion about "a" and "b". According to the welcome box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." My argument to the nominator's assertion is that "a" is not independent is that there is no evidence
824:
This is the first time I've gone through AfD. I don't know the standards applied at AfD. To play it safe, I had to put in a considerable amount of time reading GNG, NCORG and the procedure for deletion. I would rather go through an AfD before I've put in more time, but I don't think the AfD editors
2012:
We have discussed five sources. Knowledge (XXG) policy says that we should consider additional sources that may exist. Proponents for retention of an article are given a reasonable time to locate those sources. I've previously quoted those policies. The article was was erroneously referred to AfD.
1741:
There are 6 references, two of which are interviews (not RS's/good for encyclopedic entries), two are listings for shows (merely confirms existence), one is a link to the Island Song project which, again, only confirms existence, and the last is a blog post that hints at possible notability in the
1706:
1. From the BWW News Desk. The article is clearly an advertisement for Island Song, and does little more than confirm it's existence, ticket prices, and that it's being hosted by All Things
Broadway, which it describes by saying "All Things Broadway is a Facebook group with over 62,000 members..."
1117:
does for Knowledge (XXG). While I appreciate his/her opinion on independence and significance, my main work has been on two articles, where there was a lack of platinum grade sources. The challenge has been to make editorial judgments about sources. While there have been easy decisions, there have
1014:
is needed to extract the content.' It says that 'significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' I believe that a review of the source, particularly the six sentence 4th paragraph shows directness and detail and is more than a
893:
newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a
2252:
A further note that I don't think there's any basis in policy, guideline, or well respected essay to suggest that any of the users noted above need to reconsider their !votes in order to be considered when someone (hopefully an admin) judges consensus here, regardless of when they !voted. Best,
1772:
After doing this research, I see no reason to keep this article in mainspace. Perhaps it could be draftified or userfied until a date when it may be notable in the future, or outright deleted. I support any option that removes it from the mainspace, as it is currently not a notable entity. I've
1112:
has focused the AfD discussion on the independence and significance of source "a" and on the independence of source "b." On those three issues, I've stated my evidence. Note that the burden of proof is on the nominator and editors favoring removal to attempt to find sources and to "consider the
1093:
is being consumed defending the article in this AfD. Knowledge (XXG), not me, "strongly" encourages editors to attempt to find sources before "nominating an article for deletion" or offering "an opinion based on notability." I'm assuming Knowledge (XXG) is addressing editors offering a negative
624:
NCORP says, 'Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources,' and 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product.' There are two sources. If 'multiple' has a meaning in this context different from 'two or more,' I'd appreciate a link to a WP
1717:
4. markrobinsonwrites.com article. This article hints at possible future notability, referring to All Things Broadway as,"a momentum-building producing organization and theatre company that has produced and performed concerts..." I see this not as evidence of notability but evidence of growing
1284:
After the rewrite, I'm still in favor of deletion. Actually, now that I think of it as a theater company, it's not notable at all. It's preformed less than a dozen times, is mostly crowdfunded from the Facebook group (it isn't a real theater company), and when it did preform received only mild
1564:
the play. To the nominator's argument that "a" lacks significance, "a" is clearly more than a trivial mention. My argument to the nominator's assertion that "b" is not independent is that there is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Broadway Wiz and Eliyahu Kheel. The
834:
Another consideration is the nominator's formulation, "As a .... As a ..." It fails to consider the notability of a Facebook group interested in Broadway theatre raising money through crowdfunding to produce a show (for a couple of weeks in a small space). That may be notable (in the standard
2161:(2)More important, the article seems to have now been completely rewritten to make it about the theatre company, not the facebook group (this was at my suggestion--I was asked for advice at a WM-NYC meeting). This means that all judgements based on its initial state need to be reconsidered..
1045:
made an exception to respond to my comment. I had absolutely no intention of creating any doubt that he/she had read GNG and NCORP many times. He/she is correct that I am asserting the two sources support notability. I don't have the burden of showing that the two sources "prove" notability.
1974:
3. Listing for Miscast. I think you are questioning "significance." The requirement is sometimes stated as "non-trivial," which I think it meets. I used it for "On April 3, 2018, it performed "Miscast" at the Laurie Beechman Theatre." I also used it for "Currently it is the largest Facebook
1622:
did) and to consider the possibility of sources not present in the article. I submit it is possible there are online print reviews (particularly "Island Song") that a diligent editor can find. For another article I've been working on, I've purchased books and CD's and ordered a DVD from the
1507:
The sources that talk about performances did not focus on the connection to the FB group. Source "a" (BW World): 1st paragraph: "Island Song." 2nd para.: cast and crew. 3rd para.: place, time and ticket price. Last para.: FB group. Source "b" (BW Wiz) was written six months before the first
1153:
Despite the many paragraphs above, I don't see these sources making this subject notable. I searched around on Google, and it didn't bring up much that I think shows the subject to be notable. The group definitely exists, and has a significant following, but I don't believe that constitutes
511:
GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.' I found no evidence that either source is connected to
1710:
2. Show-score.com interview with Julian Mendoza. Starts out by saying "The Facebook group All Things Broadway..." (again, not referred to as a theater company). After this, it's simply a personal interview about Mendoza's experiences in theater and with the Facebook group. Doesn't confer
930:
constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as
743:, even though I mentioned a discussion on notability on the article's talk page. While I'm delighted to hear the views of the editors at AfD, the nominator's failure to first discuss his/her concerns with me would be a reason for resolving a borderline decision in favor of retaining
2003:
is the largest FB group. I use the link to the Island Source project for a summary of Island Song. The blog post is permitted under the expert exception and meets the requirements for a source supporting notability: significant coverage, reliable and independent of the subject. The
1118:
also been decisions requiring a lot of research and thought. As an editor who has had to find sources, my opinion is that the two sources I found are sufficient to "suggest" notability and that they are the tip of the iceberg. Digging deeper will show how big the iceberg is. I hope
501:
Unless someone can point me to a policy that specifies a particular number, I am loathe to invest more time until the notability issue has been resolved in favor of retention. There may be additional sources (including the official website) which can be used to fill out the
1227:, has a WP page. The second source is written by an expert in musical theatre. There is an exception in RS for blogs written by experts. (I'll spare you a paragraph quote!) Two of his books, including a two volume encyclopedia on musical theater, are used as sources in WP.
1962:
1. BWW News Desk says in the fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, "Now expanded into a theatre company based in Manhattan, ..." That is a mention of a theatre company. The lead sentence of the article is "All Things Broadway is a theatre company based in New York City, New
1497:
As for crowd-funding from FB members, one of the sources you provided (an expert who has written a two volume encyclopedia of musical theatre) high-lighted the crowd-funding as the wave of the future. I think the crowd-funding makes the theatre company more, not less,
948:
I don't normally respond to comments on articles I've nominated for deletion but I want to assure anyone reading this that I have read, multiple times, all of the documents Vyeh is quoting from. In essence the editor is suggesting that there are two sources
1994:
Interviews are usable in Knowledge (XXG) for quotes and for non-contentious facts, e.g. the songs Julian Mendoza sang. Reliability is a function of the publisher. E.g. if the New York Times publishes an interview, it can be used to support a quote by the
1681:
Your reasons are not substantive. Nor can you close an AfD, as you imply by saying, "Barkeep49 or Vermont can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months." Your arguments are, in my opinion, not supported or well-founded; they're just extremely
1707:
Notice there is no mention of it being a theater company, as it isn't primarily a theater company. This source is used to support the lead sentence, which refers to All Things Broadway as a theater company, which is not mentioned in this reference.
664:(or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by
1064:
in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before
1179:
thank you! "... a lot of articles about it ..." Is it possible to post the URL's of the articles? I'm primarily interested in the ones not from the small blog sites (potential sources), but blogs might lead to sources. Thank you in advance!
1724:
6. Interview with the founder of the All Things Broadway Facebook group, Eliyahu Kheel. It does not, by any means, confer notability. It simply asks Kheel a few questions, and gives a link to his website. (which is currently a blank HTML
1998:
On listings, BWW News Desk is not a listing. Its four paragraphs describe the show, the cast, time, place, ticket price, the FB group and the theatre company. I used the listing for Miscast to confirm existence and to support that
957:
which prove notability. I suggest neither of these sources are independent (a is a rehashed press release and b is an interview) and further a's topic is not the production company but a play and lacks significance to boot. Best,
1921:
unsupported statements." The links and quotes, along with my asserted facts, are the foundation of my arguments. I suggest that my arguments are "well-founded." I've never asserted that either your arguments nor the arguments of
616:
NCORP says, 'Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.' Both sources provide a description of
209:
1029:
For source "b," there is a 80 word, five sentence introduction before the Q and A, generated by the interviewer, not the subject. I used that introduction to support the assertion that Eliyahu Kheel is the founder of
473:, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do
1537:
wasn't very interesting. The only reason there were multiple sources was because of its activities outside chat space. As the wave of the future, it is more interesting. Hence, there are sources which meet GNG and
529:
creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
1986:
5. Island Song project. I used it to support that the musical was "about five New Yorkers." The source starts a summary of the musical with "Five New Yorkers." I haven't used it in this discussion to support
1613:
lists some steps the nominator should have taken in the case of a newly created article before submitting it to AfD. I've spent a lot of my wiki time responding to this AfD. Seven days is not much time.
1714:
3. Listing for their "Miscast" event, again referring to All Things Broadway as a Facebook group, and does little more than advertise a bit and give a link to their website. Doesn't confer notability.
1269:
works in the deletion area, either rescuing articles or helping them out the door. He informed me that FB groups are disfavored. He urged me to rewrite the article as a theatre company. I've done so.
1122:
respects my opinion. Although our opinions differ, we are each trying to improve Knowledge (XXG). I believe that the evidence supports my opinion and the combination of the recently created status of
495:
The sources appear to be written from a neutral point of view, one as a news article and the other as an interview. There doesn't appear to be anything that impugns the credibility of either source.
1303:
2199:
With the rewrite it is still lacks independent reliable sourcing to establish notability. The current sources are personal web sites, event announcements , interviews and the like. Not notable.
286:
for providing your reasons. I also appreciate that you put it in AfD, rather than speedy deletion or proposed deletion. This is an opportunity for me to learn more about notability. I've read
638:
in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.
498:
I have found two sources, which are 'multiple' in standard English. There is no evidence that these sources almost a year apart are relying on the same source or are from the same author.
488:
On the surface, both appear to be secondary sources. Broadway World lists the author of the article as "BWW News Desk." While the Broadway Wiz source is an interview with the founder of
162:
492:, I am using the introductory material to support the statement Eliyahu Kheel is the founder. I believe the remaining statements fall within the guidelines for self-published sources.
1407:
1089:
I had only begun to search for reliable sources. I wrote an initial draft of the article from the sources I found. The time I would have spent looking for additional sources for
996:
hashed" suggests that one of these individuals edited the press release. The requirement for independence is met if this individual has no personal nor financial relationship to
1381:
1018:
306:
1238:
The third URL happens to use the words "all things Broadway" in the lead post of a 250+ post thread. If you found the FB group in the thread, could you give me the post number?
1054:
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the
779:
published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
460:
about suitability. Broadway World is used as a source in many Knowledge (XXG) articles. I have checked Broadway Wiz at the Reliable Sources Newsboard and found no objections.
203:
1433:
2183:, please be concise. Most of us discussing here know the rules--your job is to show that the article meets them by explaining why the sources are reliable for notability.
1755:
I'll note that All Things Broadway is primarily a Facebook group, although is also (and less importantly, as it's small and definitely not-notable) a theater company, per
435:
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.' In both sources,
1459:
257:
1942:
I am puzzled at how emphasizing one aspect rather than another can affect your evaluation of notability. l added an additional source. That should not reduce notability.
739:
The nominator chose to bring the article to AfD rather than sharing his/her reservations with me, mentioning his/her concerns on the article's talk page and/or adding a
1355:
1201:
950:
370:
1991:
with his up to ten daily Broadway postings, never expected it to grow beyond a hundred members and is currently reaching out to the professional Broadway community."
2086:
The box above the edit area says, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements."
1329:
988:) or whether there is a person independent of the generator of the press release, who exercise independent judgment about the press release. Broadway World names
724:
says 'Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously
94:
1021:
has a long section about significance. I quoted the first sentence above. I submit that the 4th paragraph of the source is an "overview" and "description" of
1094:
opinion on notability. If anyone looks for sources, I would appreciate a report, here or on the article's talk page, so I don't have to repeat the searches.
2287:
realize that something you have put a lot of energy into does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s strict standards. It happens to all of us at one point or another.
109:
775:*The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes
1206:. There's also a bit of forum posting and threads online about Island Song, which seems to be the main thing the community did that garnered attention.
668:). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and
169:
852:. Editors in this discussion should keep in mind that NCORG says an organization only needs to satisfy either GNG or NCORG and that the nominator of
2070:
characterize those sources as two listings (I have argued one is much more), a link and a blog post. Thank you for searching for additional sources.
981:. I accept that you have read the documents multiple times. I will focus on the independence of the sources and on the significance of source "a."
485:. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'
135:
130:
681:
nor evidence that the content was produced by interested parties, other than the standard practice of news organizations using a press release.
635:
139:
1574:
If the nominator or anyone else comments on the last day, I ask that I be given 24 hours from the last comment advocating deletion to respond.
2213:
I’ll note that ThatMontrealIP, TimTempleton, and Bradv !voted delete after the article was rewritten to focus on the theater company aspect.
1105:(mention reservations to article creator or on article talk page or add cleanup template instead of taking recently created article to AfD).
1081:
for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Knowledge (XXG) articles are
1204:
562:
531:
122:
747:, as a way of discouraging nominations for AfD without making an effort to discuss concerns with the editor of a recently created article.
728:, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a
2066:, I've already exhaustively analyzed and gone through the six sources. I disagree with the characterization of four sources as "ads.'
2146:
913:
Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also:
578:
NCORP says, 'The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
2076:
I've already addressed independence. And I think five sources do not constitute "extremely poor" sourcing. As to the amount of text,
89:
82:
17:
1011:
646:
are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
470:
432:
1231:
might want to apply his GNG and NCORP analysis to those sources. (I'm not being sarcastic. I never hoped to have collaboration on
224:
557:
353:
191:
1198:
799:
After examining GNG and NCORG, I don't see any additional requirements beyond WEBCRIT. I've spent more time writing about how
561:, then there is a presumption that it merits an article. The burden is on the proponents for removal to provide reasons, e.g.
1703:/GNG. I'll now proceed to go over each source, which is all that has been found in terms of researching All Things Broadway.
1610:
1102:
857:
808:
721:
287:
103:
99:
815:
had followed those suggestions, I could focus my time on addressing specific objections rather than addressing everything.
927:
725:
569:
or that the reliable sources are directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, or minor news stories.
551:
453:
347:
1241:
Thank you so much! It was such a surprise and a joy to click on your first two URL's and realize that they are sources.
61:
2313:
40:
2100:
Vyeh, your comments in this AfD total over 5,000 words thus far. (Yes I ran them through a word counter.) Please read
1814:
1061:
566:
535:
185:
1804:. There are six sources in the article—four of them are ads and two are interviews. I could not find any additional
1674:
740:
729:
2296:
2262:
2247:
2222:
2208:
2194:
2148:
2113:
2095:
2080:
originally only cited NGN and NCORG, forcing me if I wanted the article to remain to address each and every point.
1852:
1836:
1819:
1786:
1653:
1477:
1473:
1451:
1447:
1425:
1421:
1399:
1395:
1373:
1369:
1347:
1343:
1321:
1317:
1294:
1278:
1250:
1215:
1189:
1163:
1139:
967:
914:
869:
449:
269:
249:
64:
1897:
This is NOT a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline; please defer to such in cases of inconsistency with this page.
1126:
and the emphasis of "existence" rather than "presence" creates an almost overwhelming presumption for retaining
478:
181:
2204:
2109:
1832:
2134:- sourcing is poor, and a targeted Google search using most common NY City publications yields nothing. Fails
590:
126:
2104:, and consider not writing anything more. Destroying an AFD with huge blocks of text is disruptive editing.
2029:. I'm trying to get another article peer reviewed and there is a backlog. What a luxury to get a review for
1494:
As a theatre company, it has performed three times in 6 months. I think that demonstrates they are for real.
57:
1262:
1047:
1007:
231:
2292:
2231:
2144:
299:
NCORP says, 'Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements
1827:. Extremely poor non-independent sourcing, as Bradv sums up nicely. Also wayyyy too much text for an AfD.
1082:
1055:
736:
AfD did not use the speedy or proposed deletion process, I assume this is not an obviously hopeless case.
602:
118:
70:
2309:
2165:
36:
2101:
825:
are well served when someone cites "GNG" or "NCORG." There should be a requirement to be more specific.
1632:
For the substantive and procedural reasons I've mentioned, the only proper action at this time is to
992:
as "BWW News Desk": Jessica Khan, Alexa Criscitiello, Julie Musbac, Danielle Ashley. Barkeep's word "
984:
For source "a," I believe the issue of independence is whether anyone can put in a press release (a
761:
2258:
2243:
2200:
2169:
2105:
2073:
2055:
1828:
963:
245:
217:
2235:
1615:
1078:
581:
482:
265:
197:
807:. The fact that I've had to address each requirement of GNG and NCORG demonstrates the value of
53:
2288:
2218:
2139:
1782:
1721:
5. Simply a link to the Island Song project which does little more than confirm its existence.
1290:
1211:
1159:
643:
371:"All Things Broadway Presents Carner & Gregor's ISLAND SONG at the Davenport Theatre Loft"
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2308:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1285:
coverage in non-significant sources focusing on the fact it's connected to a Facebook group.
1066:
639:
240:
As a facebook group does not satisfy GNG. As a theater company does not satisfy NCORP. Best,
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2083:
2059:
1846:
1010:(see the full quote above) requires the topic be addressed 'directly and in detail, so that
700:
457:
409:
405:
382:
2135:
1899:(their bold). Every link and quote I have made is to a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline.
1801:
1074:
1070:
1050:
is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article:
316:
2234:
a claim for it being a theater company was already present and something I examined in my
1809:
1098:
works whose source is independent of the site itself"), on which I was basing notability.
1925:
were not well-founded. I've only suggested that my arguments should be given more weight.
1892:
1805:
1700:
1154:
notability. There are a lot of articles about it, although mostly from small blog sites.
932:
776:
596:
526:
2254:
2239:
2162:
2091:
2077:
1922:
1670:
1649:
1637:
1548:
1521:
1469:
1443:
1417:
1391:
1365:
1339:
1313:
1274:
1246:
1228:
1185:
1135:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1042:
978:
959:
865:
283:
241:
1600:
concerns by pointing out the frequency and reach of the theatre company's productions.
1113:
possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I respect the work
2230:
that my nomination and defacto !vote of delete stands. When I nominated this article
2190:
669:
431:
GNG says '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that
378:
261:
657:), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
2214:
2067:
2022:
2014:
1872:
1867:
1778:
1641:
1619:
1597:
1584:
1517:
1485:
1286:
1220:
1207:
1174:
1155:
654:
156:
1000:
or Eliyahu Kheel. In the absence of any evidence, this is the proper assumption.
2013:
I've quoted the relevant policy governing newly created articles and AfD. While
756:
I've quoted extensively from GNG and NCORG because I am unable to determine how
2179:
I am for the time being not giving an opinion about keeping or deleting. But,
2173:
2063:
2051:
1224:
665:
634:
NCORP says, 'A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no
1223:, I've incorporated your first two URL's into the article. The first source,
2180:
2087:
1666:
1645:
1463:
1437:
1411:
1385:
1359:
1333:
1307:
1270:
1242:
1194:
1181:
1131:
989:
861:
1060:
of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or
677:
I have found no evidence that the author of either source is connected to
448:
GNG says '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow
2185:
1266:
1073:
an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a
954:
456:.' I am using Broadway World sources in another article after consulting
397:
848:
for AfD, I believe he/she has incorrectly applied both GNG and NCORG to
1971:
included theatre fans and (3) that Eliyahu Kheel founded the FB group.
672:
that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
2009:
on sources, not on an editor's assessment of a subject's importance.
1618:
requires editors considering deletion to search for sources (which
732:, instead of bringing the article to AfD.') Since the nominator of
2131:
567:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
536:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
398:"Ten Questions with Eliyahu Kheel, founder of All Things Broadway"
1756:
52:. Consensus is that the sources do not meet the requirements of
2304:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
790:
I would appreciate information about any policy I overlooked.'
56:, and the article cannot stand without sufficient sourcing. ♠
2278:
708:. Broadway Wiz is an edited interview with the founder of
1304:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
985:
1916:
I value your opinion. While we can disagree on whether
1150:
changed to strong delete, see my response to Vyeh below
152:
148:
144:
1464:
1438:
1412:
1386:
1360:
1334:
1308:
760:
fails notability. On the article's talk page, I said '
525:
GNG says, '"Presumed" means that significant coverage
439:
is in the title, so it is more than a trivial mention.
216:
1644:
can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months.
1565:
nominator has not yet commented on "c," "d" and "e."
690:
I've already discussed reliability for both sources.
1524:
comments during this AfD. The article has improved.
230:
1699:references that push this entity over the line of
1408:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
977:Thank you for making an exception and responding,
915:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Questionable sources
362:to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.'
1775:strong delete or otherwise removal from mainspace
1773:struck my comments above as I am now in favor of
1556:is the first three words. I'd say "a's" topic is
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2316:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1611:Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion#Considerations
1609:Finally, I've mentioned some procedural issues.
1458:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1432:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1406:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1382:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
1380:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1354:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1328:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1302:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1103:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Considerations
1077:, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to
858:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Considerations
809:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Considerations
722:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Considerations
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
2238:and included in my nomination statement. Best,
1052:
773:
1434:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
856:failed to follow the procedure recommended by
1695:Anyways, to why I think it should be deleted:
1460:list of New York-related deletion discussions
258:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
1356:list of Theatre-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1457:
1431:
1405:
1379:
1353:
1330:list of Music-related deletion discussions
1327:
1301:
844:With all due respect for the nominator of
255:
882:
803:meet GNG and NCORG than I did creating
1967:Mendoza was singing, (2) that the FB
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1003:For the significance of source "a,"
328:has to satisfy either GNG or NCORP,
341:GNG says, 'If a topic has received
2025:for the attention he has put into
24:
1677:) has already cast a vote above.
369:Music News Desk (June 16, 2018),
288:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion
1656:
1130:. Thank you for your attention.
917:for handling of such situations.
95:Introduction to deletion process
2021:I really (and sincerely) thank
2297:04:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2263:04:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2248:02:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2223:01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2209:01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
2195:23:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
2149:23:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
2114:21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
2096:14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
1983:, the coverage is significant.
1853:23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1837:23:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1820:22:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1787:23:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1654:20:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1478:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1452:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1426:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1400:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1374:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1348:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1322:14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1295:09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1279:09:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1251:10:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
1216:15:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1190:15:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1164:13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1140:13:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
968:22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
926:Moreover, not all coverage in
870:09:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
516:or its founder, Eliyahu Kheel.
469:GNG says '"Sources" should be
452:evaluation of notability, per
270:00:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
250:23:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
65:05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
534:, particularly the rule that
454:the reliable source guideline
1979:devoted to Island Song, and
1520:, I've appreciated your and
317:general notability guideline
860:. Thank you for your time.
563:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
532:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2333:
545:meets the requirements of
365:I have found two sources:
1959:Addressing your comments:
1101:I've already quoted from
302:these alternate criteria,
2306:Please do not modify it.
704:production of a show by
32:Please do not modify it.
1560:the production company
2232:Special:Diff/860622454
1087:
894:comprehensive article.
811:. If the nominator of
781:
385:: Wisdom Digital Media
1596:I have tried to ally
1472:) — If (reply) then (
1446:) — If (reply) then (
1420:) — If (reply) then (
1394:) — If (reply) then (
1368:) — If (reply) then (
1342:) — If (reply) then (
1316:) — If (reply) then (
1091:All Things Considered
83:Articles for deletion
1012:no original research
660:Independence of the
649:Independence of the
625:policy or guideline.
582:significant coverage
547:significant coverage
433:no original research
343:significant coverage
2062:for your comments.
2031:All Things Broadway
2027:All Things Broadway
2006:All Things Broadway
2001:All Things Broadway
1981:All Things Broadway
1918:All Things Broadway
1554:All Things Broadway
1535:All Things Broadway
1233:All Things Broadway
1128:All Things Broadway
1124:All Things Broadway
1108:I am grateful that
1075:deletion discussion
1036:All Things Broadway
1032:All Things Broadway
1023:All Things Broadway
998:All Things Broadway
854:All Things Broadway
850:All Things Broadway
846:All Things Broadway
813:All Things Broadway
805:All Things Broadway
801:All Things Broadway
758:All Things Broadway
745:All Things Broadway
734:All Things Broadway
710:All Things Broadway
706:All Things Broadway
679:All Things Broadway
619:All Things Broadway
558:independent sources
543:All Things Broadway
527:in reliable sources
514:All Things Broadway
490:All Things Broadway
437:All Things Broadway
332:both GNG and NCORG.
326:All Things Broadway
309:for organizations,
119:All Things Broadway
71:All Things Broadway
1844:- as not notable.
1041:I appreciate that
891:but not limited to
741:"cleanup" template
730:"cleanup" template
483:written in English
2033:at the beginning.
1678:
1480:
1454:
1428:
1402:
1376:
1350:
1324:
1151:
1083:not a final draft
644:product placement
603:secondary sources
471:secondary sources
272:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
2324:
2281:
1871:
1849:
1817:
1812:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1489:
1178:
1149:
1015:trivial mention.
936:
933:reliable sources
928:reliable sources
924:
918:
911:
905:
901:
895:
887:
701:secondary source
552:reliable sources
479:available online
420:
419:
417:
393:
392:
390:
348:reliable sources
307:primary criteria
235:
234:
220:
172:
160:
142:
80:
34:
2332:
2331:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2314:deletion review
2277:
1865:
1847:
1815:
1810:
1664:Duplicate vote:
1657:
1533:As a FB group,
1483:
1172:
941:
940:
939:
925:
921:
912:
908:
902:
898:
888:
884:
726:a hopeless case
699:NCORP says, 'A
636:vested interest
415:
413:
412:, July 25, 2017
402:BroadwayWiz.com
396:
388:
386:
368:
177:
168:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2330:
2328:
2319:
2318:
2300:
2299:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2225:
2211:
2201:ThatMontrealIP
2177:
2170:ThatMontrealIP
2158:
2157:
2151:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2106:ThatMontrealIP
2081:
2074:ThatMontrealIP
2071:
2056:ThatMontrealIP
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2019:
2010:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1976:
1972:
1964:
1960:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1856:
1855:
1839:
1829:ThatMontrealIP
1822:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1696:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1455:
1429:
1403:
1377:
1351:
1325:
1298:
1297:
1265:, I found out
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1239:
1236:
1167:
1166:
1027:
1026:
1016:
986:German example
979:User:Barkeep49
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
938:
937:
919:
906:
896:
892:
881:
880:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
839:
838:
837:
836:
829:
828:
827:
826:
819:
818:
817:
816:
794:
793:
792:
791:
785:
784:
783:
782:
768:
767:
766:
765:
751:
750:
749:
748:
737:
716:
715:
714:
713:
694:
693:
692:
691:
685:
684:
683:
682:
675:
674:
673:
658:
640:Self-promotion
629:
628:
627:
626:
622:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
600:
594:
588:
585:
573:
572:
571:
570:
539:
520:
519:
518:
517:
506:
505:
504:
503:
499:
496:
493:
486:
464:
463:
462:
461:
443:
442:
441:
440:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
394:
375:Broadway World
363:
356:of the subject
336:
335:
334:
333:
322:
321:
320:
313:
303:
294:
293:
292:
291:
274:
273:
238:
237:
174:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2329:
2317:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2302:
2301:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2285:
2280:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2182:
2178:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2166:.TimTempleton
2164:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2152:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2143:
2142:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2127:
2126:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2082:
2079:
2075:
2072:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2011:
2007:
2002:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1982:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1924:
1919:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1843:
1840:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1813:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1795:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1758:
1757:their website
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1636:the article.
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1496:
1493:
1487:
1482:
1481:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1461:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1086:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1051:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
990:4 individuals
987:
982:
980:
969:
965:
961:
956:
952:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
934:
929:
923:
920:
916:
910:
907:
900:
897:
890:
886:
883:
879:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
841:
840:
833:
832:
831:
830:
823:
822:
821:
820:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
789:
788:
787:
786:
780:
778:
772:
771:
770:
769:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
746:
742:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
719:
718:
717:
711:
707:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
689:
688:
687:
686:
680:
676:
671:
670:fact checking
667:
663:
659:
656:
652:
648:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
623:
620:
615:
614:
613:
612:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
580:
579:
577:
576:
575:
574:
568:
564:
560:
559:
554:
553:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
528:
524:
523:
522:
521:
515:
510:
509:
508:
507:
500:
497:
494:
491:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
416:September 21,
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
389:September 21,
384:
380:
379:New York City
376:
372:
367:
366:
364:
361:
357:
355:
350:
349:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
331:
327:
323:
318:
314:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
298:
297:
296:
295:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
171:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2305:
2303:
2289:Softlavender
2283:
2273:
2227:
2184:
2153:
2141:TimTempleton
2140:
2128:
2030:
2026:
2018:same entity.
2005:
2000:
1995:interviewee.
1980:
1968:
1917:
1896:
1845:
1841:
1824:
1797:
1774:
1663:
1633:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1534:
1261:
1232:
1146:
1145:
1127:
1123:
1107:
1100:
1096:
1090:
1088:
1079:find sources
1056:
1053:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1022:
1002:
997:
993:
983:
976:
922:
909:
899:
885:
877:
853:
849:
845:
812:
804:
800:
774:
757:
744:
733:
709:
705:
678:
661:
655:astroturfing
650:
618:
556:
550:
546:
542:
513:
489:
474:
436:
414:, retrieved
401:
387:, retrieved
374:
359:
352:
346:
342:
329:
325:
310:
279:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
165:
76:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2284:independent
2102:WP:BLUDGEON
2084:Operator873
2060:Operator873
2050:Thank you,
1987:notability.
1848:Operator873
1711:notability.
1147:Weak Delete
591:independent
477:have to be
458:Ian.thomson
354:independent
204:free images
1808:coverage.
1583:Regarding
1263:Last night
1225:Show-Score
1071:nominating
889:Including
878:References
762:WP:WEBCRIT
666:churnalism
450:verifiable
282:Thank you
2310:talk page
2255:Barkeep49
2240:Barkeep49
2236:WP:BEFORE
2163:Barkeep49
2078:Barkeep49
1923:Barkeep49
1725:document)
1638:Barkeep49
1616:WP:NEXIST
1549:Barkeep49
1522:Barkeep49
1491:you mean?
1229:Barkeep49
1120:Barkeep49
1115:Barkeep49
1110:Barkeep49
1067:proposing
1057:existence
1048:Notablity
1043:Barkeep49
960:Barkeep49
351:that are
284:Barkeep49
242:Barkeep49
37:talk page
2312:or in a
2154:Comment
1800:. Fails
1738:Overall:
1675:contribs
1623:library.
1547:So far,
1498:notable.
1470:🗣️ Talk
1444:🗣️ Talk
1418:🗣️ Talk
1392:🗣️ Talk
1366:🗣️ Talk
1340:🗣️ Talk
1314:🗣️ Talk
1267:User:DGG
1197:, sure!
1062:citation
777:reliable
597:reliable
587:multiple
502:article.
410:New York
406:Flushing
383:New York
360:presumed
358:, it is
262:KCVelaga
163:View log
104:glossary
54:WP:NCORP
39:or in a
2274:Comment
2228:Confirm
2215:Vermont
2068:Vermont
2023:Vermont
2015:Vermont
1975:group."
1873:Vermont
1868:Vermont
1779:Vermont
1742:future.
1642:Vermont
1620:Vermont
1598:Vermont
1585:Vermont
1518:Vermont
1486:Vermont
1474:ping me
1448:ping me
1422:ping me
1396:ping me
1370:ping me
1344:ping me
1318:ping me
1287:Vermont
1221:Vermont
1208:Vermont
1175:Vermont
1156:Vermont
662:content
210:WP refs
198:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
2136:WP:GNG
2129:Delete
1963:York."
1895:says,
1842:Delete
1825:Delete
1802:WP:GNG
1798:Delete
1538:NCORG.
953:&
651:author
324:Thus,
182:Google
140:delete
62:(talk)
50:delete
2191:talk
2174:Bradv
2132:TL;DR
2064:Bradv
2052:Bradv
1969:group
1893:WP:42
1806:WP:RS
1701:WP:42
1682:long.
1019:NCORP
225:JSTOR
186:books
170:Stats
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
2293:talk
2279:Vyeh
2259:talk
2244:talk
2219:talk
2205:talk
2181:Vyeh
2110:talk
2092:talk
2088:Vyeh
2058:and
1833:talk
1811:Brad
1783:talk
1671:talk
1667:Vyeh
1650:talk
1646:Vyeh
1634:Keep
1558:both
1465:Tyw7
1439:Tyw7
1413:Tyw7
1387:Tyw7
1361:Tyw7
1335:Tyw7
1309:Tyw7
1291:talk
1275:talk
1271:Vyeh
1247:talk
1243:Vyeh
1212:talk
1195:Vyeh
1186:talk
1182:Vyeh
1160:talk
1136:talk
1132:Vyeh
964:talk
866:talk
862:Vyeh
642:and
555:and
418:2018
391:2018
315:the
305:the
280:Keep
266:talk
246:talk
218:FENS
192:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
2186:DGG
1640:or
1562:and
1069:or
1008:GNG
541:If
481:or
475:not
345:in
330:not
232:TWL
161:– (
58:PMC
2295:)
2276::
2261:)
2246:)
2221:)
2207:)
2193:)
2172:,
2168:,
2138:.
2112:)
2094:)
2054:,
1835:)
1785:)
1777:.
1673:•
1662:—
1652:)
1476:)
1462:.
1450:)
1436:.
1424:)
1410:.
1398:)
1384:.
1372:)
1358:.
1346:)
1332:.
1320:)
1306:.
1293:)
1277:)
1249:)
1214:)
1203:,
1200:,
1188:)
1162:)
1138:)
1038:.
994:re
966:)
868:)
584:in
565:,
549:,
538:.'
408:,
404:,
400:,
381:,
377:,
373:,
311:or
268:)
260:.
248:)
212:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
60:♠
2291:(
2257:(
2242:(
2217:(
2203:(
2189:(
2176:.
2108:(
2090:(
1870::
1866:@
1831:(
1816:v
1781:(
1759:.
1669:(
1648:(
1488::
1484:@
1468:(
1442:(
1416:(
1390:(
1364:(
1338:(
1312:(
1289:(
1273:(
1245:(
1235:)
1210:(
1184:(
1177::
1173:@
1158:(
1134:(
1025:.
962:(
955:b
951:a
935:.
864:(
764::
712:.
621:.
605:.
599:,
593:,
319:'
290:.
264:(
244:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
166:·
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.