Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seen in NY


 * 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 merge to EdLab. Seems like the consensus here is that the sourcing presented is not in fact adequate to justify a separate article, due to the sources not meeting the substance requirements of WP:SIGCOV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Seen in NY

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Went right to AfD, rather than prod, since the article is structured so well. However, I can't find a single in-depth source from a reliable, independent source in the current article. All are either from the group itself, or from press for the show at other facilities (e.g. St. John the Divine, Floating Library, Brooklyn Museum). Searches simply turned up more of the same. Fails WP:GNG  Onel 5969  TT me 00:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I was asked to relist in order to generate a broader consensus.
 * KEEP – Sort of horrifying how much work was done and I feel bad about that. And so many links weren't working or were redirects. Super annoying. I fixed the links at least. And I did a pretty significant amount of edits, finding more information about the series. I hope this tips the entry into not being deleted. I got far into the episodes and was cleaning those citations up, but need to stop for a little while because this was time consuming to do in a compressed amount of time. And plus, I don't want to clean up the whole entry and then have it deleted, so waiting to see if what I've done will rescue the article before continuing. Please advise if this is an improvement. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC) striking vote by blocked sockpuppet.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP – further to the comments and work undertaken by MootsieOrangeville: continuing to look for sources in pedagogical literature, which are not always easy to track down online. Believe this series to be of value to the education community, and in particularly to educational scholars as it documents a large number of unique educational activities over a specific period of time, in New York. There are issues with the links as discussed above, in part because the organisation is undergoing substantial changes, with the original publication platform (New Learning Times) being closed. The continuation of this page as an encyclopaedic entry will preserve the knowledge contained in this series. Eduser us (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete changing vote to merge below signed,Rosguill talk 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC) – I agree with nom, the article is well written but the sources just aren't there. Keep votes so far seem to just be "I like it" and "I put a lot of work into it", which aren't policy-backed reasons for keeping an article. I'd be ok with sending the article to draft if keep editors think that they'll be able to find sources given more time. signed,Rosguill talk 19:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear Rosguill, it is incorrect to say that my "keep" vote suggests in any way that having put a lot of work into the page means I think it should be kept. Nowhere do I mention how much work I put into the page, and I fully acknowledge that the amount of work I put into the page has no bearing on the outcome of this process. I do not know why you are suggesting that that is my argument. Neither do I mention in my argument that "I like it" and think therefore that is an argument for keeping the page. It is clear in what I have written that I personally believe the page has value to a certain community, and acknowledge that more work needs to be done to include notable references. Again, I do not know why you would categorise my argument as such, when that is clearly inaccurate. The tone of these comments, and the inherent inaccuracies, seem to be demeaning in nature, which does not appear to follow Wikiquette. I would please ask that you review the Please do not bite the newcomers page, and reflect on how your comments could be read as disparaging.
 * I notice that onel5969 has struck out the entire post from MootsieOrangeville for being a sockpuppet. Whilst I understand broadly what the term sockpuppet means, I do not know all of the policies and procedures around this. What is clear however, is that the edits made to the page from that account were improvements, and I see no reason why these contributions should not still be considered in this process. I do not see why their "keep" vote should be entirely disregarded in this case, unless the edits made to the page have been proven to be inaccurate. Again, I do not know the policies surrounding sockpuppets, but it seems to me that there is some value in their edits, and this should not just be disregarded, especially as the user who initially nominated the page is also the user striking out these comments, and effectually using that process as a double "delete" vote. I hope that the admin will consider this in their final assessment, especially as this is a relist, and there is currently only one additional voice contributing at this time. Eduser us (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , regarding the striking of comments, striking talk page comments by sockpuppet accounts is standard practice, see WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Regarding arguments, the now-struck sock did directly appeal to the amount of work they put into the article as a reason to not delete it. I apologize for any offense to you as that was not my intention, but while "I like it" is an oversimplification of your comment, you haven't provided a justification for keeping beyond your opinion that the content of the article is valuable. At AfD, arguments are generally rooted in providing evidence and making claims that the subject meets notability guidelines; more rarely, other policy and guideline based arguments are invoked. Finally, please avoid editing while logged out, and make sure that you put a signature at the end of each of your comments; right now it's not clear from the formatting that your second-to-last comment was actually written by you. signed,Rosguill talk 19:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge (selectively) and Redirect to EdLab, of which this is a project. Whether or not articles are kept on Wikipedia is a function of "notability," which is sort of a jargon term here, meaning WP:N. Effectively, the question isn't about whether something is important, valuable, etc. but whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there are journal/magazine/newspaper articles, book chapters, etc. about it, written by people without a connection to the subject, please link them here as that's what it all comes down to. It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we use. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits but here are a several more references to the original site "written by people without a connection to the subject." https://www.ichallengemyself.org/college-bike-tour https://www.morrisjumel.org/paranormal http://www.alleypond.com/news.html https://themusebrooklyn.com/press-1 https://www.manhattanbirth.com/manhattan-birth-on-the-web.html https://beatriceglow.org/new-page-1 http://stelar.edc.org/articles/seen-ny-bridging-gap-central-park-zoo http://www.cityreliquary.org/columbia-u-teachers-college-comes-to-the-reliquary/ http://stelar.edc.org/publisher/new-learning-times http://girlsriders.org/gro-on-new-learning-times/ https://www.southbronxunited.org/sbupress https://www.modernpinballnyc.com/field-trips-in-new-york-city/ https://www.courtinnovation.org/publications/seen-ny-youth-justice-board http://www.greenspacenyc.org/Press http://www.gamesforchange.org/blog/2013/09/20/seen-in-ny-games-for-change-festival/
 * KEEP – I was delighted to find this resource which becomes even more valuable now that www.newlearningtimes.com is no longer available. The defunct website's cache can only take you so far. This article on EdSurge shows the promise that once was https://www.edsurge.com/news/columbia-s-edlab-offers-forum-for-startups and here's another link that should help keep this article around. http://www.fluxfactory.org/news/kitty-city-in-new-learning-times/

And finally is it helpful to add this video to the Wikipedia Day page perhaps? https://www.vialogues.com/vialogues/play/8546signed,Intelligencias comment added by Intelligencias (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to EdLab. There simply are not enough independent, in-depth sources to sustain this as a standalone article. The above reference dump illustrates this quite well: all of these are passing mentions. An article cannot be sourced on this kind of thing and primary material alone. - I don't see a barrier to treat the subject on the EdLab page, which may even include collapsed tables of episodes; the wikilinked listings are indeed useful, and offhand I can't see anything like such a list on the project's blog. But definitely collapse the lot please... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Elmidae, please define with numbers what would constitute "enough independent" sources as well as what is considered "in-depth" so that I can contribute in an objective way that isn't at the whim of vague subjective rules and undefined guidelines. signed,Intelligencias
 * Number of required sources is subject to discussion, but "multiple sources are generally expected". As for the difference between "in passing" and "in depth", that may be best illustrated by an example: this is moderate in-depth coverage of Planet Earth II. This is a passing mention. All of your links from above fall into the latter category. We require at least some from the former. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my vote to merge per Elmidae and Rhododendrites' points about EdLab. signed,Rosguill talk 19:32, 28 November 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.