Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"New Yorkistan"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 much as I detest this particular cover, it certainly is notable per the arguments listed below -- Samir धर्म 12:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"New Yorkistan"[edit]
Non-notable, possibly copyvio, unencyclopedic, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic. --דניאל talk contribs Email 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect? What part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are you saying is relevant? Uncle G 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the article is simply written un-encyclopedically. It is simply a list of every area marked on this map of "New Yorkistan." --דניאל talk contribs Email 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a maxim that is far too often abused as a synonym for "I don't like this article.". None of the 7 items on that list apply to this article. It isn't a memorial, a FAQ, or a travel guide, for example. And List of counties in New York is also a list of areas marked on a map, as is Realms of Arda, so that is not a rationale for deleting an article. Uncle G 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except List of counties in New York are the real verifiable names of actual counties, all of which have information on them. This article is about an image with made up names and no further information beyond the names themselves. Surprisingly the image itself isn't shown in the page, presumably for copyright reasons. Ultimately, this is an article about a painting, without the painting. Also missing is the meaning behind the image or more accurately, the reason the image was created in the first place. The image was actually used in a much more appropriate article here (top right) but was deleted because of copyright issues. I don't see how you can have this article without the image. I'd like to see sources for what the meanings of each section are too. To my knowledge, the image was created without explanation, presumably leaving it to the viewer's interpretation as to the meaning behind each name. That would mean any definitions are purely speculative and unverifiable. It does seem to be a notable image though... Apparently you can buy it as a nice shower curtain. I think "List of covers of the New Yorker" might be a more appropriate place for it but again, without the actual images because of copyright issues, you don't have much. Reluctant Delete as it's a nice image and it gives you a little bit of perspective about New York. Unfortunately, without a comprehensive verifiable list of reasonings behind the place names, I don't see the article becoming much more than a bit of an inside joke for New Yorkers. All your left with is an image and an image on its own doesn't make an article. I'd vote for keep if we could:
- Get a verified explanation from the authors outlining their reason for creating the image.
- Get a verified list (again, from the authors) about how they came up with each location's name and what each name means.
- Include much more information verifying the images notability. Why is it an important image? What does it tell you about New York? What was the impact of the image on those who saw it (All from verified articles found in notable publications)?
- Get a copy of the image in the article.
- Without all of those, you don't have much and at this point in time, I don't see how you could get any of them. You need more information like this in the article: The New Yorker Uncovers An Unexpected Profit Center Yay unto the Chicken 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see how we could get more information and then point to an article from which we can get more information? That is self-contradictory. Why do you think that we should delete a stub article when you yourself have given at least one way in which it can be expanded? We don't delete stubs that are capable of being expanded.
We used to have a copy of the image, by the way. Ironically, it was deleted because it was inappropriate to the article that it was used in, and this article, where it would have qualified as fair use, didn't exist at the time. Uncle G 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the article I pointed to isn't enough. You still need information on the actual image itself and from what I've been able to gather, there isn't any. "New Yorkistan is an image that made the New Yorker lots of money" is information better placed in The New Yorker article rather than a new article. At the moment, all the information about the image I can find seems to say that it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article (something I encourage you to do if this page is deleted). If you can find items 1 - 4 I outlined above, then it would warrant a separate article. My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. Some of the definitions that are there are based purely on speculation occuring on a message board or someone's blog. Yay unto the Chicken 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. — The article itself says otherwise. Please actually read it. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. — We don't delete articles for being incomplete. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article — You have just argued that the article should be merged. Merger requires that the article be kept. Article merger is not deletion and does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article can be summed up into a one (at most two) paragraph summary which would be better placed in The New Yorker article. Other much more notable magazines covers do not have their own articles though in some cases, their titles exist as redirects to the magazine they appeared on. I apologise if technically, I should have said "summarise into a paragraph and add into New Yorker" instead of "delete". The only purpose that would seem to warrant an article is a full and complete list of all the names on the map with explanations but if we look at the list, of the 64 total names, only 25 have definitions. 39 remain unexplained. Of those that do have definitions, their meaning is sorely lacking. Gribinez: The Hudson River. "gribinez" is Yiddish for "cut-up chicken parts". And? What do "cut-up chicken parts" have to do with the Hudson river? Find me a source which explains why this meaning was given to the Hudson River. Khaffeine: A reference to coffee. Really? But why was this part of the map named after coffee? There are a lot of coffee stores there? It was just a funny name? Then there are other names. Central Parkistan: This is Central Park in Manhattan. Really? Again, so? Why was it called "Central Parkistan"? If the only reason is because "well, they added -istan on the end 'cause it sounded funny", do we really need that defined? Likewise Al Quarantine "it's a jail". That too seems fairly self-explanatory as a funny. As you can see, most of the definitions can be summarised with the sentence "because it sounded funny". We don't need an entire article for that. Half of the definitions that do exist were also taken from non-reputable sources. If you remove those, you are left with a succinct paragraph of information which is better placed in The New Yorker article. I can see that "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.", so I change my previous delete to Merge with the current article becoming a redirect. Yay unto the Chicken 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. — The article itself says otherwise. Please actually read it. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. — We don't delete articles for being incomplete. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article — You have just argued that the article should be merged. Merger requires that the article be kept. Article merger is not deletion and does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the article I pointed to isn't enough. You still need information on the actual image itself and from what I've been able to gather, there isn't any. "New Yorkistan is an image that made the New Yorker lots of money" is information better placed in The New Yorker article rather than a new article. At the moment, all the information about the image I can find seems to say that it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article (something I encourage you to do if this page is deleted). If you can find items 1 - 4 I outlined above, then it would warrant a separate article. My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. Some of the definitions that are there are based purely on speculation occuring on a message board or someone's blog. Yay unto the Chicken 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see how we could get more information and then point to an article from which we can get more information? That is self-contradictory. Why do you think that we should delete a stub article when you yourself have given at least one way in which it can be expanded? We don't delete stubs that are capable of being expanded.
- Except List of counties in New York are the real verifiable names of actual counties, all of which have information on them. This article is about an image with made up names and no further information beyond the names themselves. Surprisingly the image itself isn't shown in the page, presumably for copyright reasons. Ultimately, this is an article about a painting, without the painting. Also missing is the meaning behind the image or more accurately, the reason the image was created in the first place. The image was actually used in a much more appropriate article here (top right) but was deleted because of copyright issues. I don't see how you can have this article without the image. I'd like to see sources for what the meanings of each section are too. To my knowledge, the image was created without explanation, presumably leaving it to the viewer's interpretation as to the meaning behind each name. That would mean any definitions are purely speculative and unverifiable. It does seem to be a notable image though... Apparently you can buy it as a nice shower curtain. I think "List of covers of the New Yorker" might be a more appropriate place for it but again, without the actual images because of copyright issues, you don't have much. Reluctant Delete as it's a nice image and it gives you a little bit of perspective about New York. Unfortunately, without a comprehensive verifiable list of reasonings behind the place names, I don't see the article becoming much more than a bit of an inside joke for New Yorkers. All your left with is an image and an image on its own doesn't make an article. I'd vote for keep if we could:
- That's a maxim that is far too often abused as a synonym for "I don't like this article.". None of the 7 items on that list apply to this article. It isn't a memorial, a FAQ, or a travel guide, for example. And List of counties in New York is also a list of areas marked on a map, as is Realms of Arda, so that is not a rationale for deleting an article. Uncle G 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the article is simply written un-encyclopedically. It is simply a list of every area marked on this map of "New Yorkistan." --דניאל talk contribs Email 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect? What part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are you saying is relevant? Uncle G 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is copiously referenced, and neither original research nor unverifiable. The argument that it is stub that is incapable of expansion shot itself in the foot. Many different people, independent of the New Yorker, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Lilith, have considered the illustration notable enough to have published works of their own about it. (As the article says, at least one organization ranks it in the top 40 magazine cover illustrations of the past 40 years.) Per the primary notability criterion, it is therefore notable. Keep. Uncle G 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep definitely more notable than many of the bands, their songs, their schools that pass muster here. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per WP:NN. Arguably it has a place within the Wiki entry for The New Yorker magazine, but having sold 750 copies is still a looong way from making it notable, and so what if it was a limited edition? It is a magazine cover, FFS, and still quite some distance to go until it is a work of art which deserves its independent listing here. Ohconfucius 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just made a subjective judgement. That is not an evaluation of something's notability. Notability is not subjective. Being the subject of independently written full-length articles in two newspapers and an article in a journal (as well as all of the people who have written about it all over the World Wide Web, hypothesising their explanations for the various placenames) makes the subject notable. That something is notable is demonstrated by it having been noted, many times over and by quite a few people. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that this is discussed "all over the web". With particular regard to my searches for a number of the names, I continually turn up only 6 or 7 pages at most and in most cases, it's the same 6 or 7 pages. Particularly the one New York Times article, a particular blog post and a thread on google answers. Most searches for "New Yorkistan" itself (without looking for place names) turn up many pages with only the image itself, with a note typically along the lines of how funny it is. Yay unto the Chicken 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just made a subjective judgement. That is not an evaluation of something's notability. Notability is not subjective. Being the subject of independently written full-length articles in two newspapers and an article in a journal (as well as all of the people who have written about it all over the World Wide Web, hypothesising their explanations for the various placenames) makes the subject notable. That something is notable is demonstrated by it having been noted, many times over and by quite a few people. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We should keep this article. It clearly is notable to The American Society of Magazine Editors who gave it an award. I'm not sure how this could be a copy vio as nothing appears to have been copied. And what is unencyclopediac about it? The Mona Lisa is encyclopediac and it's "only a picture" as well, the only difference is the medium in which the artwork appears. Is magazine art any less worthy of an article than any other art? It's a work of satire that was popular enough for it to be re-sold as home decoration (posters/lithographs). Mallanox 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G. Duane 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Uncle G. More explicitly, the cover has had multiple independent articles written about it in other sources such as the New York Times, so notability is easy. Also, the causes for the names have been discussed in said articles in WP:RS sources, so they aren't an issue either. JoshuaZ 01:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.