Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Women's Culinary Alliance

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|New York Women's Culinary Alliance}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_York_Women%27s_Culinary_Alliance Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|New York Women's Culinary Alliance}})

I do not think this article is notable. Of the 16 sources listed, 11 seem to be primary sources. Then, regarding the 5 remaining sources:

Source number 1: A small historical note to the NYWCA Archive of the NYU Fales Library, doesn't seem to imply huge notability, but it is a reliable secondary source.

Source number 2: Organisation mentioned in the New York Daily News, a tabloid of which there is no consensus on its reliability.

Source number 3: Article of a HuffPost contributor, which is considered generally unreliable.

Source number 4: Mentioned in a book which has 570 entries of restaurants etc. in New York, doesn't seem to imply huge notability.

Source number 16: This is a good source, but seems mostly focused on the organisation's archive and not the organisation itself.

Taking all these factors into account, I do not think this page is notable per WP:ORG.

MrClog (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Update regarding source number 4: the writer of the entry (Layla Khoury-Hanold) has been involved in the organisation before the book was published in 2015; she organised programs for the organisation in both 2012 and 2013 (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20170909175023/http://www.nywca.org/programs/reports/ here]). --MrClog (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• As the author of this article, it will surprise no one that I believe the NYWCA is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It has been active continuously for more than 35 years, representing thousands of members in total. Here's why: Its founding members included Julia Child, Sara Moulton, and Jean Anderson, all of whom are the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Its members have been affiliated with the Four Seasons restaurant, the Food Network, Gourmet magazine, and Ladies Home Journal, all of which are the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. One of the article’s citations is from the New York Daily News, which is described as “a tabloid of which there is no consensus on its reliability” – an assertion made without any supporting evidence. Regarding the News’s reliability, I’ll note to start that it has been published continuously since 1919. More tellingly, according to Wikipedia itself, the Daily News was awarded a Pulitzer Prize as recently as 2017, for a story "about the widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities.” As for Suzanne Hamlin, the author of the story in the Daily News, she landed at the New York Times in 1992 and wrote about food for that publication for the next ten years: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzanne-hamlin-8139a69. Another source, the Huffington Post, is also accused without evidence of unreliability. But The Post’s Wikipedia entry notes that it was awarded a Peabody Award in 2010 and a Pulitzer Prize in 2012. And in 2015, it was nominated for the Responsible Media of the Year by the British Muslim Awards. Finally, MrClog describes New York University’s Fales Library as “a good source,” but then discounts their endorsement because it “seems mostly focused on the organisation’s archive and not the organisation itself.” I’ll note only that the Fales Library is indeed a library. Conserving archives is one of the chief activities conducted by libraries – and if the Fales hadn’t been convinced of the NYWCA’s notability, they never would have bothered to acquire the group’s archives in the first place.Illbadler (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Illbadler}}, First of all, the fact that members are notable and did notable things does not make the organisation notable, just like how not all groups Barack Obama, etc., are members of are inherently notable, unless reliable sources report on it. My arguments on the reliability of these sources are based on WP:RS/P, which lists New York Daily News as a tabloid and notes there is no consensus on the reliability of it (see here) and posts by HuffPost contributors as generally unreliable (see here). There is also a difference between the fact that an organisation's archives may be relevant for a library and the organisation being directly relevant to a general encyclopedia. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Re Wikipedia’s assessment of the Daily News: you are correct that it claims that there is no consensus on its reliability. “No consensus” means that some sources believe that it is not reliable and some believe that it is reliable. I disagree with your opinion that a library’s embrace of an archives doesn’t necessarily mean that those archives are relevant to a general encyclopedia. If it’s good enough for a notable, professionally-staffed university, it’s good enough for a user-generated encyclopedia. I noticed, by the way, that Wikipedia’s list of the reliability of some sources asserts the following about Discogs.com: “The content on Discogs is user-generated and is therefore generally unreliable.” Exactly the same charge could be leveled at Wikipedia. Thank you. Illbadler (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

::::{{u|Illbadler}}, First of all, please use only one "*" per message, otherwise it looks like it are all different votes, which makes it difficult to assess consensus. {{tq|Exactly the same charge could be leveled at Wikipedia}}: true, that's why WP:WPNOTRS states "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". Also, the fact that the archives possesed by NYWCA are notable (to a library) does not mean the organisation on itself is notable. New York Daily News is indeed not clear on its reliability, but that means that the only things you have is that this organisation's archives have been considered relevant by a university library and that a source, of which its reliability is unclear, mentions the organisation. This does not match the requirements of WP:ORG in my honest opinion. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:I don't think we're going to agree, in my honest opinion. Is there a higher authority that can adjudicate this dispute? Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

::After 7 days, an administrator will close the request and base their decision on the comments posted here. --MrClog (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Lovely. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think an event [https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/12/garden/food-notes-484889.html in the New York Times] is enough to show notability, and that was all I've found. There is a lot of coverage on the founders, and I also think a redirect and partial merge might be worth considering. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don't delete. MrClog, I'm heartened by your work on behalf of Wikipedia in spite of your acknowledgement of its unreliability. I hope you'll extend the same generosity to the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post with regard to their coverage of the New York Women's Culinary Alliance -- and that you'll reconsider your efforts to delete the Wikipedia article about the organization. The group's many members during the past three-and-a-half decades have no doubts about its notability and effectiveness in an ongoing campaign to combat sexist bias in the food professions. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just on the "book which has 570 entries". It's "significant coverage" we ask for. If it "addresses the topic directly and in detail" it doesn't matter how few or many other topics also receive significant coverage in the same publication: Bhunacat10 (talk), 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. The book with the 570 entries devotes a detailed article to the NYWCA by name. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• :{{u|Bhunacat10}}, for as far as I could see the book spends less than half a page on it, that doesn't seem to be in much detail. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• ::MrClog, The entry that precedes the entry on the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is entitled "NYU Food Studies in the 21st Century." It is 179 words long. The entry that follows the entry on the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is devoted to a 19th Century restaurant called Niblo's Garden. It is 301 words long. The entry devoted to the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is 380 words long.Illbadler (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Illbadler}}, so? A 380 words entry doesn't seem to be detailed enough to imply notability to me, to be honest. --MrClog (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• ::MrClog, we're talking about an encyclopedic book of 570 mostly shortish entries, all of which, obviously, are notable in the opinion of the book's editors. That said, the article on the NYWCA is longer than both of the articles that bracket it.Illbadler (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::{{u|Illbadler}}, I seriously doubt that the brief mention matches WP:PRODUCTREV. I would say that the mention matches the follwing example of trival coverage (mentioned on WP:ORG): {{tq|inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists}}, as the book lists the 570 "food, people, places, and institutions that have made New York cuisine so wildly diverse and immensely appealing" (according to the book's description). I did some research and the writer of the entry has been involved in the organisation before she wrote the entry! The book was published in 2015 and the writer gave 2 programs in, one in 2012 and one in 2013 (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20170909175023/http://www.nywca.org/programs/reports/ here]), and therefore the source is not independent at all and really implies very little to no notability. --MrClog (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::MrClog, thanks so much for the link to the website for the NYWCA. Under their "Programs" section, they describe 97 different events produced by the members of the group for the members of the group between June 2012 and June 2017. I would not characterize that level of productivity as trivial. Similarly, under "Outreach and Community," they note, "NYWCA is dedicated to supporting member initiatives and community organizations working to promote the nutrition and health of women and children in New York City....We have supported: Nourishing USA, Charles B. Wang Community Health Center, Ronald McDonald House, Cooking with Kids with Cancer, GEMS and The JCC in Manhattan SPA Day for Women with Breast or Ovarian Cancer." The first three of these programs have Wikipedia entries. All of them are notable.Illbadler (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• ::::{{u|Illbadler}}, the fact that they have their own website implies no notability. {{tq|We have supported}} is very vague and unless reliable sources report on this support it really isn't notable. You are yet to point to me any Wikipedia policy, instead of your own opinion, that supports keeping the article on this encyclopedia. --MrClog (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• ::::MrClog, you misrepresent me. Our whole discussion has been about notability. It was you who first provided a link to the NYWCA's website. If the website is notable enough for you to use to attack the writer of the piece about the NYWCA in “Savoring Gotham,” then it’s notable enough for me to depend on for an account of the astonishing productivity of their programming. Indeed, it is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact that the NYWCA has produced and continues to produce substantial programming for its members and to support notable community organizations in and around the city of New York. You and I have also directly discussed the reliability of the sources in my entry. As noted, I believe that the Daily News and the Huffington Post, both of which have written about the NYWCA, are no less reliable than Wikipedia itself. I’ve also pointed out that Suzanne Hamlin, who wrote about the NYWCA for the Daily News, went on to distinguish herself as a writer for the New York Times, the notability of which is indisputable.Illbadler (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::{{u|Illbadler}}, You make a few false assumptions here.
• :::::MrClog, I assume nothing. I make assertions based on research and reason.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*{{tq|If the website is notable enough for you to use to attack the writer [...] then it’s notable enough for me to depend on for an account of the astonishing productivity of their programming}} - First of all, I don't "attack" the writer, rather, I explain why she is not independent. Second, this claim is simply not true, there's a substantial difference between me pointing out someone's involved in an organisation according to a primary source and you claiming it is notable because of that primary source. See: WP:PSTS
• :::::*MrClog, your research on the writer was meant to discredit her. It certainly was an attack. And your reliance on a primary source for research on a writer certainly allows me to rely on that same source for credible information about its activities.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*{{tq|it is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact that the NYWCA has produced and continues to produce substantial programming for its members and to support notable community organizations in and around the city of New York}} - This is again just an opinion. You have cited no reliable sources that claim they gave "substantial programming", and their support for certain organisations doesn't make them notable. I donate to certain notable NGOs, am I notable enough for a WP article now?
• :::::*MrClog, my "opinion" about the group's programming is an accurate summary of the extensive information they provide about those activities. As for your support for certain notable NGOs, you are an individual. If your support included organizing on their behalf and generating publicity and money for those organizations, you might indeed merit a WP article. As for the NYWCA, their support for these notable organizations is a matter of public record, and the public acceptance by the organizations of the NYWCA is a measure of the group's notability.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*{{tq|As noted, I believe that the Daily News and the Huffington Post, both of which have written about the NYWCA, are no less reliable than Wikipedia itself}} - Agreed, as per WP:WPNOTRS, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
• :::::*MrClog, I appreciate your candor. On that basis alone, you should abandon your campaign to delete the entry on the NYWCA.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*{{tq|I’ve also pointed out that Suzanne Hamlin, who wrote about the NYWCA for the Daily News, went on to distinguish herself as a writer for the New York Times, the notability of which is indisputable}} - That doesn't mean anything to this discussion. It's not simply the writer that matters when looking at reliability of sources, it is also about the editorial team of a newspaper and the type of news they send out.
• :::::--MrClog (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*MrClog, I completely disagree. A given writer builds his or her own reputation. The Times -- that paragon of reliability -- never would have hired her if she hadn't previously established her reliability.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*:{{u|Illbadler}}, I would like to respectfully ask you to, instead of using your own opinion, use Wikipedia policy to back this article's notability. Besides that, please (re)read WP:PSTS. I didn't attack the writer of the entry, I simply said that she is not independent as per WP:ORGIND (part of the guideline specifically on notability of organisations), which lists {{tq|any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly}} as an example of dependent sources. --MrClog (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• :::::*:MrClog, I have always endorsed Wikipedia’s policy regarding notability and I continue to do so now. WP’s articles are written by amateurs with no notability – or credibility -- of their own. Establishing the notability of a given subject with reliable secondary sources is thus an unimpeachable attempt to overcome this basic defect of Wikipedia. But there are limits to the efficacy of this solution. What is one to do if a prospective subject somehow hasn’t generated significant notice from respectable third parties in the media? It happens sometimes. I have done my best to adduce commentary from secondary sources attesting to the notability of the New York Women’s Culinary Alliance. I continue to believe that the sources I cite are sufficient to that purpose – you disagree -- but I admit I wish there were more. How to explain this lack? In the case of the NYWCA, it speaks to their utter lack of desire as an organization to generate publicity. They are an organization devoted exclusively to helping women culinary professionals overcome sexist bias in the profession. As its members would attest, and as the organization’s longevity attests, this focus has been – and continues to be – successful. But the NYWCA’s work has not garnered much public notice in the larger world. Still, if the article on the NYWCA is deleted on the basis of current WP policy, I believe it will be WP’s loss. In March of 2018, the New York Times’ obituary section began publishing a feature called ”Overlooked.” An unsigned explanation of the origin of the feature noted that “since 1851, the New York Times has published thousands of obituaries….The vast majority chronicled the lives of men….Charlotte Bronte wrote “Jane Eyre”’ Emily Warren Roebling oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge; Madhubala transfixed Bollywood; Ida B. Wells campaigned against lynching. Yet all of their deaths went unremarked in our pages.” Summing up, William McDonald, the Times’ obituary editor, wrote, “With ‘Overlooked,’ our new collection of obituaries for women and others who never got them, The Times is acknowledging that many worthy subjects were skipped for generations, for whatever reasons.” Going forward, WP might want to take a tip from the Times.Illbadler (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, seven days have passed since I posted this article and you proposed that it be deleted. How soon can we expect an administrator to resolve this debate? Thanks?Illbadler (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Illbadler, at the top of this page, there is a box saying 'New to AfD? Read these primers.' AfD discussions can be extended to allow for more discussion. It seems that only you (the article creator), the editor who nominated for deletion, and one IP editor have so far !voted in this AfD, so I think it's quite likely that it will be extended at least once. I have only just noticed it myself, and will have a look at the article and search for sources and then come back and !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Great. Thanks.Illbadler (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree that the organization is doing important work and has significance in its field, most of the things I've read profile the members far more than the organization itself. Unfortunately, many article topics which should be deserving die in process due to lack of reliable source coverage. This does not mean that the article can't come back later if and when more in-depth coverage is given about it in various media. My other concern is that I suspect {{u|Illbadler}} may have a conflict of interest regarding this topic, specifically regarding an affiliation with Sarah Moulton, who was one of the founders of the organization. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Userify or Keep. I'm seeing some good soruces in a gBooks search [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22New+York+Women%27s+Culinary+Alliance%22.&safe=active&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXx6PcisbhAhXPrVkKHb5SBX0Q_AUIFCgB&biw=1732&bih=1130]. I think the subject is notable and article needs improvement. Perhaps page creator is willing to learn to write an acceptable article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or draftify. There's enough in E.M.Gregory's search to make me think this organization might be notable. But, the current article is a mess. Most of the references are to the org's own newsletter, and some of the others don't look so great either. The article itself is a mess. Maybe with some good sources and WP:TNT this could so somewhere, but let that work happen in draft space. Yeah, I know, WP:NOTCLEANUP, but there's limits. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.