Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYArts


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NYArts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Of the three sources in the article, one is an interview, and then the ArtNet ref is based off the NY Post ref. A BEFORE search didn't show anything of note. Kbabej (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG as blatant WP:PROMO. Written partially by Lubelski himself. KidAd (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to admit to having seen lots of articles which only source to the subjects own website, but just because we have lots of poorly sourced articles does not mean we should keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * weak keep The NY Post coverage is quite significant and it is a main stream, general interest news who actually interviewed numerous people, and went as far as going to the CEO's house to try to get an interview. If anything, the article can be re-written to focus on the scandal. Graywalls (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. The NY Post piece is about the person bilking artists out of thousands. It doesn't review the magazine, its circulation, its significance, or its impact. This is less coverage about the magazine and more about a con job. --Kbabej (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.