Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Circus Arts Academy


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New York Circus Arts Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete None of the references contain Independent Content, failing WP:ORGIND. A BEFORE search shows that the company exists but I am unable to locate any in-depth significant articles with independent content thereby failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The New York Times (and the other two newspapers) doesn't "contain Independent Content"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Content The articles don't contain Independent Content *about the company* since they rely almost exclusively on interviews/quotations from the company or their founder. For example, the NYT article isn't even about the *company* (the topic of this article) and the company is only name-checked once in the text of the article (so fails WP:CORPDEPTH). The WP:ORGIND section of NCORP says: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject., can you point out any Independent Content in the articles in question? There's no independent opinion/fact checking/analysis or investigation.  HighKing++ 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. While there are quotes from the founder sprinkled in in all three newspaper articles, most of the information is presented by the reporter without attributing them to him as the source. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe I'm mistaken. Also, ORGIND is very clear that it must be "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" and the fact that the entire article is based on a visit to the academy and interviewing both the founder and some clients, I'd say you're stretching it beyond credulity to say that the article contains any independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking. More importantly, there is almost no information in this article about the company - here are the main pieces:
 * "Those students had been on the ground, but others at the New York Circus Arts Academy in Long Island City, Queens, twist high overhead"
 * "The academy, which was founded by Cypher Zero in 2002 and established a permanent home in Long Island City in September, teaches beginners how to perform basic aerial acrobatic tricks, like inversions, or hanging upside down. Advanced students learn how to spin in and out of the silks, hang by the back of one knee from a hoop and create their own acts. There are classes for children and adults."
 * "There are now 50 students, somewhat fewer than when the academy operated out of temporary quarters in Midtown Manhattan."
 * This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as I said already, also fails WP:ORGIND. Please take another look with a focus on extracting what is being said about the academy that can be directly attributable to the journalist, and then ask if that is significant. I believe you'll then reach the same conclusion as I have.  HighKing++ 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - should probably be considered in concert with the AfD for New York Circus Arts. And I do not see enough to meet WP:NORG for either. John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. Let's get the simple part out of the way.  I'm a pretty die-hard deletionist, so my metaphorical ears perked up when I read there was a NY Times article as a source.  I read the article; it's clearly WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS.  Then I went and read the Daily News article, and came to the same conclusion.  So, why the reservation?  Because the dates on the two articles are a week apart.  That makes me think they were both written in response to a press release.  But, I'm also seeing enough other stuff, such as The Social Semiotics of Tattoos: Skin and Self and The Rest of Us: A Novel to push me over to the keep side.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Response It doesn't matter if it passes SIGCOV in an RS - it fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Daily News article suffers the same problem as the NYT article in that it is based on a visit to the academy and an interview with the founder and some students, etc. Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. And neither of those book references meet the criteria for establishing notability either. One says "circus schools have existed for many years ..." and lists the academy along with others in a list. Fails CORPDEPTH. The other is a work of fiction and is also a mention in passing, failing CORPDEPTH and probably RS.  HighKing++ 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, with reservations. Call it Weak keep if you like.  Yes, I had noticed that the second book was a novel.  I think the title gave that away :-)  But, I'm not convinced a mention in a novel doesn't imbue some degree of notability; the author had to at least be aware enough of them to want to include it in their dialog.  I'm not saying that's a great thing, and by itself it wouldn't count for much, but it's non-zero.  It's really the NYT piece that does it for me.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't mean to bludgeon you into submission. Can you take a look at what I've said above about the NYT piece - that it fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Have you a different take based on some policy/guideline? I don't understand how, if you accept it fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, that you're still at a weak keep?  HighKing++ 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel bludgeoned. Two editors who disagree, and are discussing their disagreement, is healthy. As for the NYT piece, I think it's clear that it meets WP:ORGIND.  That requires that, unrelated people with no vested interest 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.  Like I said earlier, I think it's likely this was triggered by the NYT receiving a press release, but they didn't just reprint it.  They looked at it, decided it was worth their time to send a reporter and a photographer there, and devote an 850-ish word article to it.  The article may include a lot of quotes, but it's not the usual fare of a CEO feeding a list of softball questions to a churnalist, who then parrots them back in the form of an "interview".  Likewise, I think WP:CORPDEPTH is reasonably met.  This is not Trivial or incidental coverage, and clearly goes beyond brief mentions and routine announcements.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources given in article and others found by RoySmith, and I can see other mentions -, also given in the book . Hzh (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (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.