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 keep. postdlf ( talk) 22:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Jamel Holley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Substantively identical recreation of previously soft-deleted page, unimproved since. No real evidence of notability. Additionally, the page content is junk; about half of it is copyvio from the sources, and about half of it is unthinking adulation of the subject. Pinkbeast ( talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The references in the article about the subject establish notability supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Issues of tone / "unthinking adulation" can be best dealt by editing the text. I don't see the copyvio issues, but rewording is a similar solution for that. There is some repetitive content and material that focuses on other family members, but that too is best handled by further improving the article. Alansohn ( talk) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep easily passes WP:BIO with sourced material.-- TM 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

A little too much of that material being badly sourced... Bearcat ( talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - While the article could use critical analysis, it needs editing rather than deletion.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Mayors do not normally pass WP:POLITICIAN until the place that they're mayor of is at least 2.5 to 3 times larger than this, and while this article does cite some sourcing it doesn't cite enough to make him the exception to the rule — the footnotes section, barely adequate as it is, would be sliced in half if I actually stripped all the primary or unreliable sources out (footnotes #1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 have to go.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 04:34, 20 July 2014 (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.