Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk to Me (NYC) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Keep, consensus is that the article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Me (NYC)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article falls into WP:NOT category. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep Notoriety and notability are not the same thing, while this couple has had trivial mention in student newspapers, blogs, and tabloids (the only sources listed in the article other than their own website.) that is not enough coverage to warrant an entry in the encyclopedia. Here in NYC we talk to each other every day, no help from college drop-outs with cardstock signs required. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and L0b0t. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no claim of notability. Sitting around in lawn chairs is not notable. --T-rex 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn, I wanted to go outside and sit a while, then write a Wikipedia page about myself. You're telling me that wouldn't be notable? :-( Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see a good amount of RS coverage and last time I checked, the New York POst and Times were not "student newspapers, blogs". WP:IDONTLIKEIT was not a valid delete reason last time I noticed. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but they are tabloids (technically NYT is not a tabloid but nobody has bothered to tell that to Sulzberger.) The sources at the link you provide for the most part just repeat a newswire release.  The only sources listed in the article itself are to student papers, blogs, and tabloids.  Again, notoriety and notability are not the same thing and WP:I'VEHEARDOFTHIS and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' The Seattle Times and San Francisco Chronicle both seem to be independent stories. Last time I checked any twp of the three big ones: NY Times, Seattle Times, SF Chron, NY Daily News.... would meet WP:N. I might have a go at re-writing it if I have a moment this afternoon. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability, even with newspaper articles. I've been the subject of newspaper articles but don't plan on writing a page about myself. Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just re-written the article with a number of sources, none of which "repeat a newswire release". It has RS coverage and I suggest future commenters !vote on the current state, not the past !votes which related to a different article. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the rewrite, quite frankly, looks great. Would this be akin to a performance art piece?  Do we have subject-specific inclusion criteria for events like this?  Despite the mentions in the newspaper I'm just not convinced that this was a big enough "happening" or project to warrant inclusion.  Every city has street crazies bohemian free-thinkers that hold up signs and talk to strangers.  Tallahassee had King Love, New Orleans has that guy at Shell Plaza with the sandwich-board deploring the persecution of our "Psychic Prisoners", Brooklyn has the guy on the C train that's quite keen on Jesus.  Talk to Me was a quirky human interest story but nothing more; I just don't think it merits an article.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you forgot Provincetown's Lobster Guy ;) Thanks for the comments on the re-write. I don't know if we have subject-specific criteria. I try not to go along the lines of "well all x are (not) notable" (not saying that you are doing this) so I'm not sure what precedent there may be. It is human interest but the fact that interest lasted for ~ three years is a good sign that it had some substance. I tried to think of a possible larger article of which this could form part, but I can't think of anything. I will think more on it. In the mean time, this has time to run and we can think :) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After giving the matter some consideration I'm going to have change my vote to a keep (vote changed above). The rewrite looks good, we have no specific reason to exclude it, and we have things like The Gates and Naked Cowboy.  Although, King Love should have his own page too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite doesn't look much different, and still not remotely notable. This is akin to having the article President Bush chocked on a Pretzel, notability is different then "it got mentioned in a newspaper" --T-rex 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as article passed AFD only a few months ago and has been rewritten to address improvement issues. 23skidoo (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if enough humans are interested in something, and write about it in major sources, its notable. that there's national coverage for this is in my view decisive--I accept that the NYT byitself can sometimes be parochial. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps the name of the article should be changed? As it stands, it refers to a single publicity stunt from six years ago. If this represents a genuine cultural happening, then having the NYC in the article name is confusing. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought about that as well, Eco. But then I looked at the disambig page and I think it makes sense because it began in New York and then led to a trip across the country. Not married to this name, but can 't think of a better one either. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I found some more press coverage such as Washington Post, and a mention in Psychology Today, the latter suggesting that maybe this is part of a larger phenomenon and the content should be merged in some yet unwritten article.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Imo there are enough refs to meet the notability guideline, and it's quirky, quirky is good. RMHED (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (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.