Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review
The review department of the Chicago WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.
This department provides a convenient collection of Chicago content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:
- Featured article candidates
- Featured article review
- Featured list candidates
- Featured list removal candidates
- Non-article featured content candidates
Several other discussion types use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for
External peer review[edit]
WikiProject peer reviews
A Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject.
You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too.
To list your review below:
- Create the peer review following instructions here.
- Add
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - July 2024
at the top of the list of requests below (where N is the archive number).
When the review is finished:
- Follow the general instructions for peer reviews here.
- Move
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - MONTH - YEAR
from the list of active reviews to the list of old reviews.
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
Joseph Berrios[edit]
Benet Academy[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.
Thanks, Benny the mascot (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry this is taking me so long - will review in the next 24 hours. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- No need to rush...I have other ways of keeping myself busy. :) Good luck on your FAC, by the way. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
- One thing that is sometimes hard to do is to provide context to the reader about things the author is familiar with. I am fairly familiar with the Chicago area, but was not that sure where Lisle was. A brief description would help (x miles west of the Loop / downtown Chicago) or a map with a dot would help too.
- Small mention of location added. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I also was confused by mentions of the college, but no real resolution on what happened to it - it took me a little searching here, but I assume it is what is now known as Benedictine University in Lisle. The article mentions the university as the site of buildings The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[20] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[12], and in terms of a scholarship at the academy, but I think it needs to explicitly say what happened to the college after the academy split. I realize that this article on the Academy, so it need not be a lot of detail, but some is needed.
- I added a footnote. Does that help? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The map is nice, but I am guessing the Census does not show buildings (only streets and water), so the source for those needs to be given explicitly - this will be checked at FAC.
- I've already provided sourcing on the Commons page. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The capitalization of College and Academy by themselves seems a bit odd, though it is done consistently as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions says if it is the generic word (college, academy) by itself it should not be capitalized.
- I fixed the ones I could find. Let me know if I missed any. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The lead just seems sparse to me - especially the second and third paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to make sure every header is in the lead somehow - are Demographics and the Christmas Drive there?
- I mentioned the Christmas Drive a little bit, but the Demographics section is already somewhat covered in the lead. ("Benet's average ACT test score has exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students have gone on to college after graduation")
- The language is decent but I noticed a few rough spots reading - I will try and come back and point some more out soon, here is one to start
- Classes began on March 2, when Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street for four months. FOur months in one day? Wow that's concentrated teaching! Perhaps Classes began on March 2, and for the next four months Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street. would be better. I am also not sure students can be remedial - I thought classes were? Could be wrong
- Sentence replaced with a small revision regarding the usage of "remedial". Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Classes began on March 2, when Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street for four months. FOur months in one day? Wow that's concentrated teaching! Perhaps Classes began on March 2, and for the next four months Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street. would be better. I am also not sure students can be remedial - I thought classes were? Could be wrong
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- More from Ruhrfisch
I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice
- Lead It was founded in 1887 as the all-boys St. Procopius College and Academy by Benedictine monks in Chicago, who also operated the St. Joseph Bohemian Orphanage, which along with St. Procopius later moved to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago.[6] Could this sentence be split into two? As it is now it is quite long and complex - I would start the new sentence after the word orphanage. Also could the year(s) for the move(s) to Lisle be added to provide context?
- Capitalization of college? The orphanage closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which then separated from the College in 1957. (In Internet Explorer you can search for a word and it highlights all the matching terms in yellow - might be worth checking caps on college and academy this way)
- Tweak sentence Sacred Heart merged with St. Procopius Academy in 1967
on the St. Procopius campusto establish Benet Academy [on the St. Procopius campus]. - Also, any idea where the name "Benet" came from? a ha - here it says Benet is an English form of Benedict
- Unclear Benet's performing arts program stages multiple musicals ... I think it would be clearer to say Benet's performing arts program stages a musical annually... perhaps saying since when
- Need to be consistent on names - in the text it is "Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict..." but the image caption is just "Abbot Nepomucene Jaeger" (no John). I also wonder since St John of Nepomuk is not well known in the US, if a link would be in order?
- Suggested reoganization Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict was the pastor of the parish[.]
, which served approximately 16,000 to 20,000 parishioners. Chicago at that time had the largest Czech population of anyothercity in the world outside of Prague and Vienna. Roughly 50,000 Czech immigrants were served by the three Czech parishes of Chicago, which included [16,000 to 20,000 parishioners at] St. Procopius. - The source says they were teaching high school classes then, so I would clarify that in Only a two-year [high school] program was offered at the time; the college offered its first four-year high school program in 1904.[9]
- Might flow more smoothly as
The first Bohemian abbot in the United States,Abbot Jaeger[, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States,] founded a Bohemian monastic community in 1894... - What does better atmosphere mean? The college and academy continued to grow in Chicago; in 1896 the Abbey bought the 104-acre (42 ha) Morris Neff farm in Lisle to gain more space and a better atmosphere.[9] Cleaner air than in the city?
- Since I am assuming that the present Benedictine University still is on the site because they are the re-named St Procopius College, I think that needs to be made clearer in this: The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[21] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[13]
- OK I am stopping the rough spots here. I think this would benefit from a copy edit before FAC. There are a few other things I noticed:
- What makes Remembering Lisle a reliable source? See WP:RS
- The alt text for the mascot should desribe it as a bird, not a redwing (there might be those who think of the Detroit Redwings or even Red Wing Shoes
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice! I've fixed most of the issues you've brought up; I just need to get that copyedit completed. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidates[edit]
- Instructions
Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Add the article to the project showcase;
Featured article review[edit]
- Instructions
Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the FAR candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Move the article to the delisted section of the project showcase;
Featured list candidates[edit]
- Instructions
Featured lists are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Add the article to the project showcase;
Featured list removal candidates[edit]
- Instructions
Featured list removals are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list removal candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Move the article to the delisted section at project showcase;
Non-article featured content candidates[edit]
- Instructions
Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:
- For pictures: featured picture candidates
- For portals: featured portal candidates
- For topics: featured and good topic candidates
- For sounds: featured sound candidates
To transclude the non-article featured content candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name of candidate picture}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Name of candidate portal}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Name of candidate topic}}, or {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Name of candidate sound}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Add the article to the project showcase;
Good article reassessment[edit]
- Instructions
Good article reassessments are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the good article reassessment candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the GAR candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
- Move the article to the delisted section of the project showcase;
Articles for deletion[edit]
- Instructions
Articles for deletion discussions are controlled by external processes; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for article for deletion review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the articles for deletion discussions, add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is deleted:
- Remove the transclusion code from this list;
- Remove the article link from the AFD candidates list at {{WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
Illinois[edit]
Nolan McGuire[edit]
- Nolan McGuire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Couldn't find any coverage that would establish notability. Recommend against a redirect due to this involvement with multiple groups. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Association for Business Communication[edit]
- Association for Business Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, cannot find sources besides routine press releases. Fails WP:NORG JayJayWhat did I do? 21:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, Business, Illinois, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Rob DePaola[edit]
- Rob DePaola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band (The Broadways) is notable either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck[edit]
- Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).
- Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS,[2][3] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist,[4] [5] pass as "GNG" for athletes,[6] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (I don't feel strongly about this, and just weighing in because of the relist request and the chirps afterwards) -- the one article from 2009 in addition to all the 2019 articles makes me feel like it is somewhat more than a one-event coverage. There's no exemption for notability for "one thing", it's one event. So given the long time period of coverage, seems like a weak keep, but I can totally understand those who disagree. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Just clears WP:GNG with the 2009 and 2019 Stingl articles in the Journal-Sentinel counting as one (not independent of each other) and the BBC source counting as another. The other sources are churnalism based on Stingl's original work. No evidence she qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC. I am generally persuaded by MSCuthbert's argument that an unusual name is not an "event" and thus WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Carl Faingold[edit]
- Carl Faingold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Andruzzi