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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York City housing crisis

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom of a declined PROD with rationale "No indication of notability. All sources primary. Further, improper cut/paste move. Would have draftified again, but it was copypasta'd into mainspace. Draft already exists." power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I think my position can be found among these links:

In terms of notability, I personally think a housing crisis that is being written about in the New York Times is a notable thing.

I propose that all text I added be removed, the article turned into a stub, and leave the intro written by Darwin Naz.

Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: also, I would like to add I find the fact that there are 63,500 homeless in New York City, including over 23,500 children, to be notable. And I also find the fact that this homeless rate has increased by 80% over the last decade to be notable.

Like I said, just leave the lead and turn it into a stub. Put it on your watchlist so you can oversee it if I add to it later. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: please explain how all sources are primary. I am using all secondary sources as far as I can tell. Thanks. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret my comment; I withdrew a WP:PROD deletion request in favor of this one to allow for discussion by more editors, and copied that rationale here. I'm neutral on this matter; if people feel the content is so problematic that it should be deleted they will have to make their own arguments here. You should feel free to edit/expand the article with referenced content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is more of a neutrality issue than a notability one. However many facts and figures about housing in NY we have, regardless of the sources, we as Wikipedia editors cannot conclude there is a "crisis". Instead, we need to present the arguments and conclusions of experts. The San Francisco housing shortage article is a very good example of what to do: the first paragraph includes the sentence Late San Francisco mayor Ed Lee has called the shortage a "housing crisis",[4] and news reports have said that addressing the shortage is the mayor's "top priority".[5] Properly sources attributions like this are essential to maintaining neutrality in this article. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I have mentioned in the Teahouse thread discussing this article, there are existing sources covering this issue from mainstream publications. The NY Times:* pastebin.com/UgsFbkZ8, the NYC government and other sources cite a housing crisis or a problem that reached crisis point, which support its notability. The article needs more contribution and - as some here have mentioned - editing (e.g. proper sourcing, more citations, objectivity) to reflect neutral tone. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no question of lack of notability. If there is a neutrality problem, it can be fixed through editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — The article needs a total overhaul—I wish we could draftify it but that has never achieved much support in my experience. There needs to be more of a historical overview of this subject because I am afraid it suffers from recentism bias.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rename, redo Using the term crisis in lower case, even if the NYT does, is editorializing. The dicdef is a time of danger or requiring a decision. Yes, the city government wants a change and so do certain advocacy groups. A desire does not establish a topic. New York has always been expensive. That has always made housing hard to find. That is true in every big city from Beirut to Beijing. Housing in New York City or New York housing situation are more to the point. Then, there needs to be some more press articles that support the underlying contention that there aren't enough cheap apartments for pizza deliverypersons to live in. Rhadow (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say making it into stub until more work can be done on it is a great idea, since the topic is more then noteworthy. TheMesquito^buzz 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable subject, though I'd go with another name and broaden the topic, like "Housing in New York City" as Rhadow suggests above. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable subject, well-written article. Agree with Epicgenius that scope might be broadened slightly, but even without broadening it should stay.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say I agree that broadening and re-titling are a good idea. For those questioning notability, I'm assuming that you folks don't live in NYC. For those of us who do live there, there's really no question that there's major problem with housing here: a glut of luxury apartment and super-luxury apartments, a severe shortage of affordable housing, and very little available for those in-between, who don't qualify for what affordable housing there is, and can't afford the luxury stuff. Manhattan is almost out of semi-affordable neighborhoods, and the areas of the outer boroughs closest to Manhattan (or easiest to reach there by mass transit) have been constantly ratcheting up in price, some of them to Manhattan-like levels. I know this is all OR in terms of what can go into an article, but I've got to assure you that these aren't simply my observations, they're general knowledge in the city. The problem is most definitely real, and the subject is most definitely notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But requires re-titling and serious re-writing to meet WP:NPOV guidelines. I do not approve of the copypasta back to mainspace nonsense, this should have been incubated in draftspace. Waggie (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object to move. Changing the title of the article will not address NPOV issues. Broadening the scope of the article to Housing in New York City is a bad idea; this would be a massive topic that encompasses history, demography, and construction (see Housing in the United Kingdom for an example). The article New York City housing crisis is in no way an overview of housing in New York City, and a move would be misrepresenting the topic. The way I see it, there are only two options for this page. (1) find reliable sources that confirm there is a crisis; present the information they provide on this page. (2) if there are no such sources, delete the page. In either case, someone can create the page Housing in New York City independently. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to clarify that the article was in the main namespace and I was in the middle of working on it. I went to IRC to ask a quick question and some user there put it into draft space. So, unfortunately, the article got "frozen" in time. As mentioned about, the only thing I did after was I removed the lead and someone else was kind enough to add a new one. I was fully intending to add more sources, write more text, etc over the next few days, but all work was stopped. I think there are a lot of good suggestions here, so thanks everyone for their time. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles moved back to the draft namespace aren't frozen; a draft can still be edited and improved, which is kinda what was explained to you at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 874#had article moved to draftspace and WP:VPI#Suggest Wikipedia does not mention IRC as a source for help. Anyway, articles nominated for deletion can continued to be worked on while they are being discussed; so, feel free to add more sources, write more text, and incorporate any of the suggestions made in this AfD if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Seahawk01 You might want to read WP:NOTADVOCACY: which prohibits "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: ...political... or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle. It indeed is small and does not present various sides. We lack an article on Housing in New York City, as we have for Transportation in New York City, Economy of New York City and other aspects. This can be be the seed from which the general and balanced article grows. Yes, it may eventually grow so large that WP:Splitting it becomes a good idea. When that happens, do it. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Article is ill-defined; a "housing crisis" caused, as described in the article, by high rents, greedy landlords skirting the law, and a dire shortage of new affordable construction has been underway in NYC for over two centuries. Many of the assertions made as fact, are ill-supporter, POV contentions. Seems tp be an attempt to use WP as political propaganda.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco housing shortage could provide a model for an article. Note, for example, that it provided a start date for the shortage. This article, mere PROMO for the housing policies of the current Mayor, (lede: "To address the problem, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio launched an initiative called Housing New York to create or preserve 300,000 affordable housing units by 2026.")needs to be blown up and stated again.DeleteE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats more WP:RECENTISM then it is WP:PROMO, which stems from the article's focus on the current state of housing in NYC. A rewrite into a more general article will help that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the article is framed to present a specific political perspective: the assertion that there is a New York "housing crisis". Most Wikipedia editors probably cannot afford to live in Palo Alto, Palm Beach, Beverly Hills, Brooklyn Heights, SoHo, Greenwich Village or the Upper East Side. This does not constitute a "housing crisis." It is evidence that some locations are extremely expensive. And, as her, it can also be the basis for arguing in favor of policies to create housing for specific groups of people (this "housing crisis" is a tool to promote subsidized housing for low-income families. In other worlds,this is not a "crisis," it is a political proposal.) The New York "housing crisis" is a political concept, invented to promote specific policies favored by the current mayor. This article simply echoes and PROMOTES a very specific political position.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article blatantly fails NPOV. An article more like San Francisco housing shortage should be possible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an NPOV article. It all begins with a tendentious title. Agree that a neutral approach to the subject would begin by starting from an article Housing in New York City to begin with. Nuke from orbit and start from scratch; it's the only way to be sure. XavierItzm (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page started on Nov 13 by User:Seahawk01 and that the editor worked on it regularly until it was bad enough for User:Drewmutt to tag it ESSAY [1]. Seahawk01 promptly removed the tag, and User:John from Idegon soon PRODDED it.[2]. The moves in and out of draft space are documented above. But also Note that article creator Seahawk writes above that: "I was in the middle of working on it... I was fully intending to add more sources, write more text, etc over the next few days, but all work was stopped." He has not, however, worked to improve the page during this discussion. Instead, he has spent considerable time during this AfD on the talk pages of multiple editors claiming not to have time to edit.[3], and arguing about stuff [4], [5], [6], [7], and making complaints, demands, and proposals [8], [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (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.