Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Azariah


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

George Azariah

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a non-notable biography/obituary. I added a prod tag; it was seconded by another editor and then removed by the article's original author, whose username indicates that he or she might be a relative of the article's subject. I have watched the article for a few days in the hopes that some indication of notability might be added, but the only substantial change has been the removal of the prod tags. --Dynaflow  babble  03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a WP:CSD. A google for the name only turns up 90 results, none of which seem to be related to this person. Possible WP:COI at work here too. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this article seems to fit under WP:CSD, it is better to allow a full AfD to run because there is less chance of the deletion being overturned. There is no assertion of notability and there are no sources provided. EdJohnston 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I gave a second prod on this, because I simply do not know whether or not he's notable. I am obviously not gong to find out from Google. The article talks about him, but it does not give specific accomplishments in a way that anyone who doesn't know the man could tell. His positions are not intrinsically notable: a translator and a secondary school teacher, and apparently a language program administrator. His qualifications for all this are what they ought to be--his training and experience as a translator is the right kind, his preparation as a language teacher is the right kind. But I do not know if they were distinctive--he may have been the very important among Indian conference interpretors, and if there's any evidence for  this, I think he'd be notable. He may have been famous as a teacher--high school teachers can certainly be notable, but we need some some evidence of recognition. Many Indian and Southeast Asian teachers at various levels have awards--does he?   His writing are mainly unpublished, including I think the two cited specifically. But have any been published, and what success did they have?  And there's a trickier point: he is claimed to be notable because of his spiritual gifts. This is a little harder to demonstrate, but not impossible: was he recognized for these gifts? Did he have disciples? Did people write about him?  I am sometimes willing to accept weak evidence for an area that can not reasonably provide strong evidence, but there still has to be some evidence. If the ed. of the article was a relative, that alone doesn't bother me--who is in a better position to know about what evidence there might be? DGG 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you might be surprised how much biographical information (for people who do warrant biographical articles) can be found using Google. India is far from being a country without documented history.  Uncle G 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of his occupation as much as anything else. I have found information for, and defended, many articles for Indian topics and people. As I couldn't do it here, I wondered if any else could. Most non-English language books from India--and many earlier English books from there-- are imperfectly entered in bibliographic databases accessible to me. DGG 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete No verifiable claims of notability. I've read a lot of articles like this. - Richfife 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, no obvious claims to real notability. (Several vague implications of possible notability aren't the same thing.) Are we sure this guy isn't an Arbuthnot? --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That last question was uncalled-for. Uncle G 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify, "this guy" refers to the subject of the article, not the author. "Several vague implications of possible notability" is precisely the problem with those other articles. It's a dodge.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbustoo 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply by Author. Apologies for deleting the prods. It was an attempt to buy time, in order to satisfactorily assert George Azariah's notability. He did publish a number of books and pioneered a language learning system based on symbols during his time in Latin America in the 80's -unfortunately, this was in the pre-internet era; and the unstable political situation in Venezuela foregrounded such initiatives. I also intended to detail his spiritual philosophy in more depth, which he has shared with many over the years; but not through an internet medium as yet. It is a process before this makes comes to the required level of prominence online, and this Wikipedia article is perhaps premature, but elements of notability will gradually emerge (as with William Blake, who was mostly an unknown during his life). Posthumous notability takes time. Mainstream history is often skewed. For instance, George Azariah's mother (Elizabeth S Azariah) was India's first woman lawyer to have received the bar in India (registered as such with the International Council of Women), but the version that prevails is that it was Cornelia Sorabji, who received the bar in Britain. It will be some time before this 'hidden history' comes to the fore, and people rediscover it. A chicken and egg situation, perhaps. But grounds for notability exist in the case of George Azariah, if as yet not obviously. Discussions are underway with publishers for the publication of his works Truth and Barabbas, and his litterary translation of the Thirukkural, as well as the re-launch of his unique language learning system. (Azariahmoreno 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)).
 * In which case an article can be created when genuine evidence of the subject's notability surfaces. Right now, there is none, and whatever notability his mother had is not relevant.  Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V.    RGTraynor  16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the history isn't already documented, Wikipedia isn't the place to document it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  From the above, it appears that what you should be doing is looking for is a book publisher to publish the never-before-documented biography of this person, not writing it on Wikipedia.  Uncle G 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Azariahmoreno, welcome. It is acceptable to remove a prod tag, as a means of showing that the proposed deletion is opposed, but it's best to follow that up with immediately addressing the subject's notability using reliable sources. You can be sure that in most cases disputing a prod will result in an AFD nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to pass WP:N, no third-party coverage being offered. Moreschi Talk 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  04:07, 22 May 2007 (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.