Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate New York


 * 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. Per inclement weather in upstate NY. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Upstate New York

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fixing formatting of discussion page, presumably Farine is the nominator Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying this article is a total mess would be an understatement. The article is too long and filled with POV and unsourced statements. I wouldn'tbe surprised if there was some original research involved in it as well.

For months, the tags complaining about the article's original research and POV have been there. And yet, little change has been brought in the article to correct the situation.

I say delete the article and start all over again from skratch. Farine (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) ( View AfD View log  •  )

Point taken. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm editing some sections further, and spinning off lists as well as sections that seem particularly controversial into separate articles. Cheers, Don Argus jr (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Upstate New York is notable enough to deserve its own article. But the article in its current state is terrible and not reliable. I am in favor in keeping it if the article is heavily reworked. I personally don't know much about Upstate New York. But if you and other folks want to correct its flaws,I say go for it.Farine (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; we will. You'll see on the "Talk" page of the article that there is not even a consensus regarding the definition of "Upstate" New York. This generates further problems for the writing of an encyclopedia article about the place. For example: what specific areas are included when trying to cite statistics for the region? My position is that this lack of consensus, and the contentiousness with which such issues are debated, is emblematic of the issues facing the region, and is part of the character of Upstaters - and that this is a big part of what makes the region notable and worthy of a separate Wikipedia article. But as I say, this is also what makes it hard to write one. It's kind of like using cats in a scientific study. As the author Vicky Hearn points out in her book Adam's Task, scientists shy away from using cats because "cats screw up your data." But she says that this doesn't make cats unworthy of study; rather, she says, it's exactly what ought to be studied. Similarly, the debate and discussion about this article is so much more illuminating than a resolved Wiki-compliant article would be. Don Argus jr (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep All of the problems with this article can be fixed by editting, deletion is not an answer when the subject is plainly notable, as this one is. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What started out as a straight forward article somehow got turned into misguided attempt to duplicate the existing page about the state of New York, the premise being that if Upstate New York is all of New York outside of New York City, then the geography of Upstate New York is the geography of the state (minus New York City), the climate of Upstate New York is the climate of the state (minus New York City), the politics of Upstate New York is... etc.  It's interesting to see how this got way out of hand.  In its first year, it was a 7KB article (as of Jan'05); 16KB as '06 began; 26KB at '07; 45KB in '08; 88KB by '09.... the difference between this one and the BP oil spill is that people recognize the oil spill as a mess.  Mandsford 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is basically a retread of the New York State article, minus mention of New York City and Westchester County. There is no need for two articles on the same subject. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Perhaps something more akin to North Country, New York, as most of the major areas already have their own entries.  Movementarian (Talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This region is common knowledge to many Americans - I've used the region to describe a locale myself and I live far from there. Make it into a stub or revert back to the mid 2000s if necessary but don't delete. Editing is needed, not deletion.  Royal broil  23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article sucks? So do 80% of Wikipedia articles. The region is difficult to define? So is Eastern Europe and the Southern United States. These aren't valid reasons to delete an article, though. Alexius  Horatius  03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable and worth having an article in the encyclopedia about; in fact, this article has been on Wikipedia for over six years. On the other hand, this article seems to go on and on with hardly any citations, which indicates a failure of some kind. Consider reverting back to an acceptable version from the past, per Mandsford and Royalbroil, but deletion is not the best way to deal with this article's problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: for many of the reasons above. why not do a complete re-write as is happening at the Albany article ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite, as mentioned above. NYCRuss   ☎  06:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. The term and region is extremely common. There's no argument here at all; if you have a problem with an article, fix it and discuss on the talk page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article's a mess? Wp:SOFIXIT applies here. And the region is difficult to define? So is East Anglia (eg are Northamptonshire and Essex part of it) - and no-one's considering deleting it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: A lot of work has to be done here, but this does not justify a delete (see above). Dewritech (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Deletion is not an appropriate method to reach cleanup goals. Article should be fixed as needed with history intact. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep'. duh.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom has only stated reasons for article improvement, not deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a mess, but not horribly so, and is clearly notable. We should rescue it.  Disclosure: I have lived therein since 1982, except for four summers. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed a lot of the cruft. Can anyone help? Bearian (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. This is one of the few articles that actually deserves to be rescued by ARS.     talk 23:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE and many of the other keep arguments, including the speedy ones. It's clearly notable and no one has suggested it isn't. The delete arguments are essentially that the article is a mess, it's duplicative, and the region is not clearly defined. Yes, it needs work, but needing cleanup and work does not equal needing deletion. Upstate and downstate are used politically, culturally, and geographically, as in Upstate Medical University and Downstate Medical Center. (Disclosure: I'm a Downstater.) — Becksguy (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * don't be a wikilawyer AFD is not clean-up... when you're deleting an article about upstate new york you're obviously put policy ahead of common sense... i mean that as nicely as possible... based on the obvious consensus to keep the experienced nominator needs to rethink their understanding of AFD... Arskwad (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep nominating 'em, Farine. "AfD is not clean-up" gets repeated a lot, but it isn't policy at all, simply a personal opinion from an essay someone wrote a few years ago.  It's the only way that I know of that problems with and article are brought to the attention of a larger community.  More often than not, people who were not aware of the existence of a page (let alone its problems), take time to work on it, and they do so with the suggestions of others in the discussion rather than based on their own views.  Improvements after such a discussion are less likely to be reverted.  Sometimes, people suggest that this should be done on the article's "talk page"-- but nobody reads talk pages, even if they're aware of the article in the first place.   AfD may not directly clean up an article, but it sure can alert people to something that hasn't been cleaned.  Mandsford 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the quoted pertinent statement from WP:ATD, which is policy, says: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". The phrase "AfD is not clean-up" is the essence, intent, and meaning, both literal and in spirit, of that clear policy. Saying it's just an opinion and not policy would be like saying "OR" is just an opinion and denying someone the ability to use "OR" as a deletion reason, if it's not linked to WP:NOTESSAY and doesn't quote the whole statement about original research. Every experienced editor knows what "AfD is not clean-up" and "OR" means and that they reference policy and carry the same weight. Sorry, but "AfD is not clean-up" paraphrasing is quoting policy. However, in terms of AfD and article improvement as a collateral effect: It's true that many more editors see AfD discussions due to their prominence, drop what they are doing and respond code three to rescue the article, and thus improve it. So yes, it does tend to work. But the response is disproportionate and takes away resources from other efforts to improve Wikipedia. It's the moral and resource-using equivalent of calling in a police SWAT team with helicopters and heavy weapons to get someone to cut the grass on his front lawn in suburbia because it's messy (a big sin there). It also results in AfD overload, which devalues the process. — Becksguy (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The bar against original research isn't a paraphrase or an opinion at all. It's spelled out very clearly in WP:NOT.  "AfD is not cleanup" is one way of interpreting WP:ATD, I suppose, but a more productive way to look at it, is that it presents the challenge to see whether there are enough people who see potential for an article to be rescued, as was the case here.  When there's no sign that people want the article, good riddance to it.  I'm an experienced editor, and in three years, I've watched our policies evolve rather than looking at 2007 as the status quo.  I know that there are others who have been here 4, 5, even 9 years, and they are no wiser than people who've been contributing for a year.  The "old-timers" tend to have a different view of Wikipedia than the ones who have come on more recently, but their opinion is not entitled to any more deference than mine. Mandsford 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Be bold: you can essentially "start all over again from skratch" without deleting this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I reverted my WP:SNOW keep close due to a post close comment by Mandsford. While he wasn't arguing for deletion, it did show that this discussion is not quite over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2010 (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.