238:. While I believe this is a borderline case, I do not think this article has sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Gothamist, ShermansTravel, NYCGo, and Newsday are all trivial coverage per NCORP's definition, while NYTimes and DNAinfo provide essentially local news coverage, and Knowledge is
579:- This article's subject seems to have received significant coverage in the media. Generally getting profiled in a source as high-profile internationally as the New York Times is an extremely strong sign of notability, and this article's subject seems to have received coverage elsewhere which have been used as sources for the article.
472:'s list ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" for the DNAinfo articles"). So we're left with just one NYTimes article - and I have to ask myself whether they would cover the bar if it opened in Chicago or Seattle. But I understand your perspective.
974:
for three days, during which they actively edited on other parts of the encyclopedia. They then waited until the precise 12-hour interval when this article was on the main page for DYK to nominate it for deletion, which doesn't seem likely to be a coincidence. I found that disappointing, to say the
790:
NYT in this case is local coverage, and I'm not finding any coverage that isn't local. Just becaue it's the NYT doesn't automatically make the coverage national or even regional. The NYT does cover the local scene. The bar is of only local notability.
419:
would count as "substantial coverage" of the business makes me think that the multiple news articles from DNAinfo covering the prolonged controversy of the bar's liquor license would also classify DNAinfo as providing substantial coverage, by
651:
articles from DNAinfo. Unless all six of those DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage (and they don't appear to be so to me), then we wouldn't be relying on a single source. We're also saying that, in addition to passing
701:, there's clearly room for reasonable disagreement, and I would be interested to know if there is any precedent regarding how we treat highly nationally influential sources that are still regionally/locally-based.
539:, the NYT does cover the local scene. Not everything they cover is automatically of national or statewide interest/notability. The NYT covering NYC is no different from the Dayton Daily News covering Dayton.
203:
769:
Having described the nomination as a "borderline case", I am shocked that you did not take into consideration the time and effort expended by the article creator, a long-time editor of good standing.
724:- The sourcing seems adequate to demonstrate notability. Also, I am rather shocked that having participated in the GAR and approved the article, the nominator has chosen to nominate it for deletion.
398:. Describing a NYC-wide news source as "local" rather than "regional" for the purposes of this guideline feels somewhat odd if the purpose is to determine notability; we'd almost never consider
294:
493:. Calling the NYT “local news” is a first. It’s a newspaper of record in the largest city in the United States. That coverage plus the other sources easily passes NCORP and make this a GA. —
468:
Thank you for your detailed !vote. It seems to me that when you take away the sources that are obviously trivial (RTL Luxembourg, for example), almost every other source fails a criteria on
164:
930:(disclaimer: article creator) per Mikehawk10 and others. As has been noted, this article is sourced to standalone coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources (mostly
314:
274:
197:
809:
111:
96:
639:
Luckily, the keep !voters aren't saying that there's only one single independent source that covers it significantly, we're saying that it passes that
805:
562:
per nom. This bar seems to have attracted only routine types of coverage in the local media, so does not need to be in an encyclopedia.
832:
625:
I believe that is what we have here, given that the other sources can be regarded as trivial per NCORP's definitions and examples.
431:
piece doesn't provide coverage of the controversy over the licensing, after all, but instead serves as a review of the bar itself.
749:
671:
to such an extent that the article's description and history sections can be built out without relying in a significant way on
91:
84:
17:
967:
to delete a GA-quality article does not seem to serve to improve the encyclopedia, and it results in a clear net negative.
137:
132:
623:
a single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
218:
831:: clearly notable. a search of what isn’t already in use in the article turns up little local paper, nyt, and others.
584:
141:
105:
101:
185:
970:
I also have some doubts about whether this AfD was started in good faith, as the nominator stopped participating in
1024:
982:
124:
40:
1003:
521:
Wouldn't this still be a statewide source covering it, even if it's in the newspaper's area of circulation? —
245:
Note that this nomination is not a comment on the quality of the article, which is high. I recently provided
964:
608:
438:
that this clearly fails. The content does not appear to be advertorial anymore, so I don't see issues with
580:
179:
1020:
653:
640:
427:, but this doesn't read like a news article and it isn't a sort of "notable for one event" article; the
36:
977:
910:
887:
A friendly reminder its not required for you to comment on every !vote on this AfD. Its bordering on
863:
774:
757:
729:
706:
680:
630:
526:
477:
459:
439:
358:
340:
322:
302:
282:
262:
175:
833:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/fashion/rise-an-unpretentious-gay-bar-opens-in-hells-kitchen.html
1007:
999:
988:
914:
900:
867:
858:- that source is already in use in the article, 8 times in fact. It has also been discussed above.
850:
846:
821:
800:
778:
761:
733:
710:
684:
634:
612:
588:
571:
548:
530:
516:
502:
481:
463:
412:
362:
326:
306:
286:
266:
211:
66:
382:, which pretty clearly fits the bill as such a source. I agree that DNAInfo is a relatively local
932:
888:
796:
604:
544:
225:
950:
is a paper of record with a national focus and international audience, so it does satisfy the
424:
383:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1019:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
896:
817:
567:
512:
498:
376:
at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary
62:
955:
906:
882:
859:
770:
753:
743:
725:
702:
676:
626:
536:
522:
473:
469:
455:
447:
435:
354:
348:
318:
298:
278:
258:
235:
752:
aren't related to notability, which is handled separately, in discussions like this one.
667:. The sources seem to enough for the article to be written well and to be written from a
253:
stating that while it should pass GA review, I had concerns about notability, which were
835:
668:
54:
191:
971:
951:
792:
698:
672:
660:
540:
451:
443:
387:
371:
254:
250:
246:
239:
128:
693:
think that the six DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage, since they appear to be
158:
892:
813:
563:
508:
494:
58:
417:
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger
415:
or not might at first seem a bit off-putting, but the example there that
120:
72:
938:
602:
one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source.
395:
905:
Fair enough, you're right. I'll sit back and let the process happen.
391:
1015:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
697:, one of the examples given for trivial coverage by NCORP. Re
434:
While this is a borderline case, I can't find anything within
507:
The New York Times also covers local stuff in New York City.
643:
requirement that you've quoted. We have both the piece from
963:
I think that when an AfD rationale is borderline at best,
695:
coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies
406:
to be limited in determining notability for corporations.
295:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
154:
150:
146:
210:
998:, as there is enough news coverage to show notability
748:
I get that it's unusual, but why is it shocking? The
621:
That is necessary, but not sufficient. NCORP states
450:and isn't encompassed by exclusionary criteria of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1027:). No further edits should be made to this page.
454:, I lean towards a keep rather than a delete. —
313:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
273:Note: This discussion has been included in the
810:Knowledge:Notability (local interests)/failed
394:and has nearly four million more people than
315:list of New York-related deletion discussions
275:list of Business-related deletion discussions
224:
8:
386:. However, it's one that covers the size of
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
312:
292:
272:
663:requirement owing to the coverage from
390:, which is comparable in population to
806:Knowledge:Notability (local interests)
694:
622:
601:
416:
375:
7:
257:the main author on the talk page.
24:
972:the ongoing talk page discussion
97:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1008:16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
989:03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
915:23:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
901:23:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
868:23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
851:23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
822:13:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
801:22:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
779:06:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
762:22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
734:20:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
711:22:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
685:19:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
635:14:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
613:13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
589:09:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
572:05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
549:22:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
531:05:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
517:05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
503:04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
482:04:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
464:04:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
411:Whether this coverage passes
363:04:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
327:04:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
307:04:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
287:04:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
267:04:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
67:11:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
446:. Therefore, as this passes
425:Knowledge is not a newspaper
675:or promotional sources. —
255:subsequently discussed with
234:This article does not meet
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1044:
1017:Please do not modify it.
442:or any other portion of
32:Please do not modify it.
673:self-published sources
423:Finally, I agree that
812:are failed proposals.
669:neutral point of view
370:. The article passes
85:Articles for deletion
596:Passes NCORP as the
374:, which states that
404:The Times of Israel
55:(non-admin closure)
933:The New York Times
665:The New York Times
645:The New York Times
380:The New York Times
251:this article's GAN
581:HumanBodyPiloter5
378:. That source is
337:Courtesy ping to
329:
309:
289:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
1035:
987:
985:
980:
886:
747:
656:, it passes the
352:
344:
247:a second opinion
229:
228:
214:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1025:deletion review
983:
978:
976:
954:requirement of
880:
741:
400:The Irish Times
346:
341:Armadillopteryx
338:
171:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1041:
1039:
1030:
1029:
1011:
1010:
1000:Jackattack1597
992:
991:
968:
960:
959:
946:is local, the
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
889:WP:BLUDGEONing
873:
872:
871:
870:
826:
825:
824:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
654:WP:MULTSOURCES
641:WP:MULTSOURCES
598:New York Times
591:
574:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
487:
486:
485:
484:
432:
421:
408:
407:
365:
331:
330:
310:
290:
242:a newspaper.
232:
231:
168:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1040:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
993:
990:
986:
981:
973:
969:
966:
965:wikilawyering
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:
935:
934:
929:
926:
925:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
898:
894:
890:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
869:
865:
861:
857:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
842:
839:
834:
830:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
789:
786:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
745:
740:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
655:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
616:
614:
610:
606:
605:Pawnkingthree
603:
599:
595:
592:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:New York City
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
364:
360:
356:
350:
342:
336:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
241:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1016:
1014:
995:
947:
943:
937:
931:
927:
855:
840:
837:
828:
787:
766:
738:
721:
690:
664:
657:
648:
644:
618:
597:
593:
576:
559:
490:
428:
413:WP:CORPDEPTH
403:
399:
379:
367:
334:
244:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
78:
49:
47:
31:
28:
829:Speedy keep
750:GA criteria
600:is clearly
198:free images
907:Ganesha811
883:Ganesha811
860:Ganesha811
771:Cwmhiraeth
754:Ganesha811
744:Cwmhiraeth
726:Cwmhiraeth
703:Ganesha811
677:Mikehawk10
627:Ganesha811
537:Mikehawk10
523:Mikehawk10
474:Ganesha811
456:Mikehawk10
384:WP:NEWSORG
355:Ganesha811
349:Mikehawk10
319:Ganesha811
299:Ganesha811
279:Ganesha811
259:Ganesha811
1021:talk page
979:Armadillo
942:). While
793:—valereee
541:—valereee
37:talk page
1023:or in a
956:WP:NCORP
767:Response
658:separate
470:WP:NCORP
448:WP:NCORP
436:WP:NCORP
420:analogy.
335:Comment:
236:WP:NCORP
165:View log
121:Rise Bar
106:glossary
73:Rise Bar
39:or in a
975:least.
944:DNAinfo
939:DNAinfo
856:Comment
739:Comment
619:Comment
396:Ireland
204:WPÂ refs
192:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
984:pteryx
952:WP:AUD
893:Kbabej
814:Djflem
788:Delete
699:WP:AUD
661:WP:AUD
564:Nick-D
560:Delete
509:Nick-D
495:Kbabej
452:WP:NOT
444:WP:NOT
392:Israel
372:WP:AUD
240:WP:NOT
176:Google
142:delete
59:gidonb
838:philo
219:JSTOR
180:books
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
1004:talk
996:Keep
936:and
928:Keep
911:talk
897:talk
891:. --
864:talk
847:talk
841:serf
818:talk
808:and
797:talk
775:talk
758:talk
730:talk
722:Keep
707:talk
681:talk
647:and
631:talk
609:talk
594:Keep
585:talk
577:Keep
568:talk
545:talk
527:talk
513:talk
499:talk
491:Keep
478:talk
460:talk
368:Keep
359:talk
345:and
323:talk
303:talk
283:talk
263:talk
212:FENS
186:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
50:keep
948:NYT
649:six
429:NYT
402:or
249:on
226:TWL
163:– (
1006:)
913:)
899:)
866:)
849:)
836:—¿
820:)
799:)
777:)
760:)
732:)
709:)
691:do
689:I
683:)
633:)
615:*
611:)
587:)
570:)
547:)
529:)
515:)
501:)
480:)
462:)
361:)
353:.
325:)
317:.
305:)
297:.
285:)
277:.
265:)
206:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
52:.
1002:(
958:.
909:(
895:(
885::
881:@
862:(
845:(
843:?
816:(
795:(
773:(
756:(
746::
742:@
728:(
705:(
679:(
629:(
607:(
583:(
566:(
543:(
535:@
525:(
511:(
497:(
476:(
458:(
357:(
351::
347:@
343::
339:@
321:(
301:(
281:(
261:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.