Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantor Judith Kahan Rowland

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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cantor Judith Kahan Rowland

Vanity autobiography written by Judirow (talk • contribs). Only claim to notability is having been an "Immediate Past President of the American Conference of Cantors". Goggle hits for ("Judith Kahan Rowland" -wikipedia) = 22. Fails: WP:NPOV and most likely WP:V for lack of 3rd party reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. GRBerry 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy since the author's name resembles the subject's. --Metropolitan90 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete,merge some of it to Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, and userfy the rest if you feel like it. I am not sure about the notablity of The American Conference of Cantors but at best it's borderline and would not extend to every past president. Jon513 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy userfy, no significance whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Crzrussian. Not a dog 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Checked Yahoo and found one article by her (added to article), a few mentions in UHC sources, but couldn't find mention in a third-party article in an online general media or scholarly publication --Shirahadasha 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Shuki 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'SPEEDY DELETE'--Shaul avrom 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I don't believe this article meets speedy delete criteria.

Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead.

In this case signicance has been asserted, and the claim is simply being disputed. So AfD is the proper course and the article can be deleted in due course if the consensus is it's not notable.--Shirahadasha 22:08, 27 August 2006 (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.