Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Connecticut. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Connecticut|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Connecticut.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Connecticut[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Ryshpan

Meyer Ryshpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very trivial coverage found [1]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [2], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY - This Montreal painter and engraver has an artistic background that deserves to be known. This biographical summary is well referenced.Veillg1 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community. It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST. Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST. The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability. See the essay WP:MEMORIAL. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG, the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Connecticut&oldid=1224628002"