Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Levine (commentator)


 * 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   delete. clear consensus both before and after the relisting  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Levine (commentator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual is not at all significant enough to warrant having his own wikipedia page. First, over the 3 plus months that the page has existed, it has received an average of less than 10 views per day. Further, the article lacks adequate support from secondary and tertiary sources, which suggests that few such sources exist. Finally, this individual claims to have a significant media presence, however he has only written a handful of short articles and appeared once on CNN and an obscure English language television program in mainland China. If everyone with a media presence as insignificant as this individual were to create their own wikipedia page, wikipedia would very quickly become polluted with a plethora of pages about individuals that the general public does not care about.

Yes writing a few articles for various editorials and appearing twice on tv is not nearly significant enough to justify having a page on Wikipedia. It appears to me that Jon Levine wrote this page by himself, as its citations rely almost exclusively on the few articles that he has written. Unless significant information about the significance of this individual is missing, the page should absolutely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.66.245.146 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a google search for further information about Mr. Levine, however I could not find anything. If he gains more of a public presence in the future he can recreate his wiki page, however as it stands now I don't believe he is notable enough to deserve his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.61.241 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Procedural speedy close  The nom is basically almost a personal attack on Levine, being phrased in very negative terms and a disdainful way. Yes, the article was created by a SPA, but that doesn't mean that this was Levine himself. In addition, even if he were, being an autobio is absolutely not a reason for deletion. Neither are the number of page views relevant in this discussion. In view of this I call for an immediate close, without prejudice if somebody else wants to take this to AFD immediately again (but this time using more policy-based arguments phrased in a more respectful way). Nevertheless, delete for lack of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Being mentioned in an article or news report doesn't cut it, nor does writing an article. His failed bid for mayor in a 4,400 person village is more novelty than notable. Common name doesn't make the search easier. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the greatest of nominations: nominator, please sign your name properly and just stick to the facts. How many hits a page gets is of no relevance, and much of your nomination reads like you got a bone to pick. Having said that, delete for lack of notability, per Niteshift for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I do not know Jonathan and have no bone to pick. I am simply appalled when I find wikipedia pages that read like a personal aggrandizement. This individual is purported to be a "consultant" and "journalist" despite having written only a handful of minor articles over the span of a number of years. It is further claimed that Levine has been "one of the most prominent proponents of working in China and American expatriation". This claim is quite pretentious in light of the fact that it is not supported by any citations. As Niteshift and Drmies have noted, this article should be deleted due to its lack of reliable third party sources and the subject's lack of notability. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete resume that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nominator needs a trout for the way he chose to word this and should climb off his soapbox, however.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given that the subject has gotten opinion pieces in prominent newspapers and magazines, I expected to find news about the subject in WP:RS. But, no. Fails WP:BIO in the end.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding nom's somewhat intemperate wording this is a clear case of WP:ARTSPAM. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:BLP and WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. Levine's prominence in the claimed fields has been verified by no less a source than CNN and his political experience should also not be discounted. I can think of more than a few wiki articles whose standards are far below this one. Furthermore, I do not think as a community we should give credence to what was obviously a personal attack on Mr. Levine. Screwtape666 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Writing a piece for CNN doesn't make you notable. Being the subject of significant coverage by CNN might. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * *CNN's description of Mr. Levine's work and career is what I was basing it on. Furthermore Mr. Levine was the subject of a CNN story so that criteria is also satisfied Screwtape666 (talk) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Their description is hardly significant coverage. The other piece....he isn't the subject. He is an example. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That description, coupled with Journal News political coverage, coupled with other descriptions on various other news sources in my estimation does add up to notability. Your description of CNN piece is a matter of perspective. Screwtape666 (talk)    —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If your estimation is that you can add up mere mentions to equal notability, then I'd submit that you don't understand what significant coverage is or what the notability standard is. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that screwtape666's only previous contribution to wikipedia was in the creation and editing of the page for Ken Levine, the father of Jonathan Levine. The account has been inactive since 2010, only becoming reactive to join this debate. It is clear that screwtape666 has a personal bias in favor of Jonathan Levine; his commentary cannot be taken as objective. Further, I would like to reiterate that I do not know Mr. Levine. This is not a personal attack. My nomination of this page for deletion is nothing other than an attempt to remove a personal advertisement masquerading as a legitimate article. As noted by Ad Orientum, this article is simply WP:ARTSPAM. Levine fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:BLP and WP:RS. DeleteWiki editor 008 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I did make the Ken Levine page but I did not make this page and am only responding to what I see here. The fact that I am not a regular editor of wiki or that my account has become inactive is irrelevant to this discussion. Your accusation of bias is completely without merit or hard evidence and once again fuels my suspicious of a personal attach motive at the heart of this matter. You clearly cannot win this argument on the merits so you resort to speculation. Screwtape666 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * On the contrary your bias is undeniable. Your sole contribution to wikipedia is in the creation of the page for Jonathan's father. After a 3 year hiatus from any activity on wikipedia, you have returned to participate in this discussion. This is not a coincidence. All editors will understand this. The merits of the argument for the deletion of this page have been universally supported by all contributors to this discussion except for yourself. The merit of the argument for deletion is indisputable. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Much like the original personal attack which started this discussion, I often make edits to Wikipedia without signing in. It is just easier and more convenient for lay-users. I have signed in for this discussion because of its unique gravity. Once again, rather than shouting bias, I defy you to find fault with any of my reasoning! I suspect this kind of editor peer pressure is why user RandyKitty changed his/her original position to now favors delete Screwtape666 (talk) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * All editors of this page have found fault with this page and have suggested that it be deleted. This is an effort to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, not a personal attack. I have only stated that this individual is not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and that what claims the article does make lack reliable secondary and tertiary sources, all points which other editors agree with. This does not constitute a personal attack. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I find it appalling that an unsigned user with suspect motivations can initiate something like this and I believe that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia to a far greater degree than this article. By deleting this page, in all likelihood you will only be validating the vandalism and slander of one of Mr. Levine's disgruntled former students and you will turn your own website into a farce. Notability has been demonstrated so let the matter rest. Screwtape666 (talk) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wiki editor 008 claims no bias and yet it seems he joined wiki solely for the purpose of defaming Mr. Levine. His very first action was to try and remove this article and he was censured by wiki's own staff:

"Hello, Wiki editor 008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Levine (commentator) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

Once again, I implore the editors to consider the motivation behind this slander and vote to Keep this article. Screwtape666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For the record, I'm the one who tagged you as a SPA and I stand by it. I believe there is a strong possibility that you are connected to the subjects. Please don't act like only one person thinks that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Levine is a director who won an award at the 08 sundance film festival for a film that i liked very much. I looked this Jonathan Levine up on wiki but instead found the article for the Jonathan Levine that this debate is currently centered around. The top of the article had two notices about lack of credibility and sources. I read the article, agreed that it lacked credence and made a wiki account so I could nominate it for deletion. This Jonathan levine's article distracts from the page for the film director of the same name. Once again, I don't know this individual and am not attempting to slander him. Instead, like all others who have contributed to this forum, I am simply advocating that the page be deleted for lack of notability and appropriate support. Lastly, I find it appalling that screwtape666 would have the gall to question my intentions for contributing to this forum given that his only prior contribution on Wikipedia was the creation of a page for Levine's father. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cut it out you two, will you? Screwtape, I'm not on WP's "staff", nobody here is. Wiki editor, I find Screwtape's arguments not biased. Niteshift has a different reading of the sources (and I agree with that), but I know quite a few editors in good standing that might agree with Screwtape's reading. In addition, whether you have a bone to pick or Screwtape has a COI is really immaterial once you're at AFD: what counts here is policy-based arguments. Not opinions, not !votes. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello... I am new to this discussion and I know it is not the majority opinion, but I feel I agree with the Keep side. I think Mr. Levine is notable enough and many of the arguments against him seem very mean-spirited. --Kevin2390 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Kevin2390 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as per RS, BIO, and what people besides the nominator said. Capscap (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I support Screwtape et al interpretations. Subject appears notable Cdcsj (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Cdcsj (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: This discussion is starting to reek of WP:SOCKS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More likely, it is meatpuppetry. This authorizes the closer to consider all the dubious !votes as a single vote for the purpose of determining consensus, so how many show up is pretty much moot and a waste of their time.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. The lead does not clearly state why he would be notable nor do the sources back up any particular direction. It's a poorly written article and it is not properly sourced.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I will continue to revert. There are compelling point in the below. Niteshift tells me to discuss but he keeps removing my justifications. It is not for HIM to decide what it relevant and is not. By calling my arguments irrelevant he is attempting to improperly influence the decision.Screwtape666 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: I am amazed to see the clear assumption of bad faith for anyone supporting the keep position while the fact that this call for deletion was initiated by an unsigned user with clear personal motivation is completely ignored. The clear scorn for first time users that is evident in this thread saddens me and I believe is part of a larger deleterious trend that is harmful to Wikipedia. If your community mocks or shuns the opinions of newer or less frequent users, they will simply just stop using. Screwtape666 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What you apparently fail to catch is that it really doesn't matter if the nominator has a personal reason or not. It brought it to the attention of a lot of experienced editors who, to this point, all seem to agree that the dude simply isn't notable. I, for one, am not worried about these new, single purpose users and I suspect that I'm not alone.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I catch is the institutional bias of Wikipedia towards its less frequent users. It seems once the "experienced" clique has come to a judgement, any dissenting voices are branded as meatpuppets or sockpuppets. or whatever you want to call them. Resorting to petty insults and intimidation of these users only reinforces a growing concern among lay-wiki users that the platform has become a tool of established interests and has betrayed its original mission. Delete this article if you want, but don't let yourselves be deluded into thinking you have achieved a consensus to do so.Screwtape666 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You can pretend there is a bias, but again, it's because you miss the reality. The experienced users are the ones most familiar with the policies, guidelines and practices of Wikipedia. We're the ones who've taken part in lengthy discussions at RSN, BLP/N, ANI and other venues. And you can call it insulting all you want, first time editors that somehow find their way to an AfD as their first edit are questionable across the board. For it to happen once in an AfD is unusual. For it to happen more than once....well, we know that's faked.Consensus isn't unanimous and there is a pretty clear consensus so far to delete this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of this page, consensus is "gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Not a single person here supported the nominator's attitude or attack. I've never encountered any of the other people who commented here and came across here by chance. There isn't some conspiracy here. Multiple editors have put forward unbiased, valid reasons as to why the article fails to meet the standards for inclusion in wikipedia and you have put forward your interpretation. And to me, it looks like it's not dissent that is causing those labels, but instead the fact that accounts that have made 0-1 edits in the past have all of a sudden wandered into the AfD discussion to make their second edits. That's just extremely unusual. But even assuming good faith, they haven't brought any new arguments or evidence to the table to help resolve this matter. Capscap (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct. This fundamentally boils down to a debate about notability. Different wiki users have shown differing opinions over the same set of facts. I agree that a simple vote count is inappropriate and easily manipulated, but I would hardly call what I see here a consensus. If you reject the differing opinions of some of your users in favor of others simply because they don't live on this website it would set a terrible precedent as per my last post. Screwtape666 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It really doesn't matter if you agree that vote counting isn't the way to go. That is policy, not an agreement between us. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to submit this article by Paul Pillar in which Mr. Pillar, who you can read in his wiki is an eminent IR scholar, responds to a piece by Mr. Levine as further evidence of notabilityScrewtape666 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, I see you don't know enough about Wikipedia to know the difference between collapsing an off topic portion of a conversation and deleting it, as you falsely claimed. Apparently you don't know what an edit summary is for either, since you keep reverting without giving a summary. You look more like a POV warrior every time you click the save page button. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment does not add anything further to this discussion and is unrelated. So I will not respondScrewtape666 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * News flash: You did respond sunshine. 03:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Notable Information I have taken the liberty of adding some new notable third party sources to this article. I believe that they bolster the Keep position and evidence for notability. I suspect that with some internet digging wiki users could probably find more notable sources and I must reiterate again my belief that deleting this article seems unwarranted and hasty Screwtape666 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment While I appreciate your efforts, I have to say that I don't see anything yet that entices me to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you really don't have to keep reiterating that you are against deletion. Everyone has figured it out by this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment While I know it is not relevant to the policy issues raised thus far, I do feel compelled to post the following recent status from the Facebook page of one Andrew Bower. On the subject of meatpuppetry which was raised earlier, I just thought I would share this all with you to put any doubts to bed about the original intentions of this discussion. This clear effort to recruit people to the delete position is a grave violation of community trust and frankly makes a mockery of this entire process. Screwtape666 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Bower June 5 via mobile Please let me know if you have a history of editing Wikipedia pages. I have met a person that has written his own wiki page... he intentionally misrepresents himself. The page has been put up for deletion and this has gotten quite a bit of support from the wiki community, '''but more voices of support from established wiki users would help. Please message me if you can help.''' Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of fake personal advertisements made to look like legitimate articles! Screwtape666 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is getting absurd. Stay on the friggin topic. Take pointless crap like this to the talk page. If you can't find the talk page, I'll provide you with a link to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No it does not belong on the talk page. It is important for you all to see.... Frankly sir, I wonder if you were one of his recruits.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is hardly irrelevant crap and to me raises the real possibility that a number of the delete editors have been compromised. You can all read it for yourselves while it is still public.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://www.facebook.com/andrew.bower.71?fref=tsScrewtape666 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No it does not belong on the talk page. It is important for you all to see.... Frankly sir, I wonder if you were one of his recruits.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Everyone can see the talk page sport. Did you not know that or are you just too lazy to click on the tab? And you can wonder all you want, but if you voice that allegation again my friend, you'd better be prepared to provide proof at ANI, because your singular purpose account will find itself there. My edit history here is long and diverse. No person in their right mind would buy into your idiotic claim. Your singular purpose on Wikipedia is clear. I can show it. You, however, can't support your false allegation. Govern yourself accordingly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is unfounded, unwarranted, and a personal attack. And I don't have a clue who Andrew Bower is, nor what that Facebook post has to do with the current debate. If you want to discuss the workings of the AFD process, go to the Village Pump or to the talk page of the AFD guideline. As for the discussion here, please stay on topic. And if you have nothing substantial to say, I would advice you not to say anything. This incessant flogging of a dead horse damages your cause much more than it helps it, because it will make it very probable that a closing admin is going to ignore all your posts completely. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now that this Andrew Bower claims to have been the person who brought this article to AFD. His canvassing on Facebook is not very effective, though, because it took me a while to figure out which AFD he actually was talking about. And I don't see any evidence of effective canvassing here (apart from some apparent sock-/meatpuppets that came here to !vote "keep"). As far as I can see, all "delete" !votes come from well-established and experienced editors who would never !vote either way just because someone asked them to. Niteshift came here because I brought this AFD to his attention (not to !vote either way, but because of possible BLP issues with the rather harshly-worded nom). --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Randy, I do appreciate your efforts and I trust that you are sincere. However, now that unequivocal proof of soliciting meatpuppetry has emerged for the delete position - not speculation, but proof - I just do not see how we can continue in good faith. Can you be sure none of the editors here have an affiliation with this Bower? Screwtape666 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You made the allegation towards me. Back it up or withdraw it. Your faux concern about meatpuppetry is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and transparently desperate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread. I didn't accuse you of anything, and frankly, I am quite finished with this discussion. I believe I have made my points clear Screwtape666 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your poorly veiled accusation is clear. I should know better than to expect you to actually act in an honorable fashion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is truly ridiculous. I am the individual who began this AFD discussion. My name is not Andrew Bower. Anybody can post whatever they want on Facebook. For all we know, this Andrew Bower could be screwtape666 attempting to create evidence that this debate is biased out of his favor. He has already ranted to no end about bias and on multiple occasions undid nightshift's attempts to place this ranting in a (still accessible) category about irrelevant discussion of bias. This Facebook post is meaningless, it's source is not verifiable and speculating about it does nothing to bring this debate to a closure. Please just look at the objective facts guys. This debate has really gotten out of hand. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - I love how my attempts to verify the claims in this article are so overblown it is outright silly. Using a nationalinterest blog as a RS on criticism of the subject and a tiny mention in Bloomberg. Doesn't seem to meet N or GNG; and whose job function is neither notable or unique enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - GNG reasons and the klout of regular editors makes a difference sometimes. Oh the perils of canvasing the world :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (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.