Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darilyn Rowan


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Darilyn Rowan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar yields a paltry four entries. Created by a WP:SPA, User:Regina fine arts. Over half the edits are due to User:Regina fine arts, User:Reginarowan, and an an IP address in Torrance, California, the location of the subject's purported employer, El Camino Community College. There are no inline citations, and the sources presented are less than reliable (The El Camino Community College student newspaper, for example); the vast majority consist of the subject's accepted submissions to a handful of literary magazines and an annual photography trade magazine contest. (Honorable mention, though—great job!). The User:Reginarowan account has repeatedly removed improvement templates:, , ,  and vandalized the Autobiography template. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Reginarowan has removed the AFD template from the article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Reginarowan has moved the article to Professor Darilyn Regina Rowan. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have reinstated the AfD banner on the article and warned the user who removed it. Feel free to reinstate it and warn again if this happens again. Also, while moving an article that is undergoing an AfD discussion is not a policy violation in and of itself, the move did add a title to the article name that is not allowed per WP:CREDENTIAL, so I moved it back. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * "Feel free to reinstate it and warn again if this happens again" So that I can be blocked for violating the WP:3RR?  No thank you!
 * "while moving an article that is undergoing an AfD discussion is not a policy violation in and of itself" I never claimed that it was a policy violation.  My experience is that AfD reviewers don't verify things beyond the first level wikilink.  So if User:Reginarowan moves the article around enough reviewers will question the validity of the AfD rather than recognize "the article listed in the AfD is a redirect" as an attempt to hide and sanitize the target of the AfD.  If you want proof of this, you need look no further than your edit in which you believed you restored "good faith" content which, upon closer examination, is actually career-minded promotion added by none other than User:Reginarowan:, , ,
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I will respond to this response on your talk page, as nothing I have to say is germane to this deletion discussion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article history suggests creation/maintenance as a vanity page. In addition to the nom's observations, I would add that the article cleverly puffs routine academic work, e.g. "Rowan wrote a paper...which was published... A copy of the publication is in...the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and the Bibliotheque Nationale de France." This is something of a tautology that is true by the definition of "published work", i.e. copies are necessarily in the permanent collection of many institutions. The rest of the article carries this same theme, reciting some publications in obscure outlets (like the The Union Newspaper of El Camino College). References non-specific awards that also seem obscure. No indication of any real impact that might support a notability claim. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.  Having one's pictures published simply means that one is a working photographer.  I see nothing in the article that suggests notability, nor can I find any sources in my own search to substantiate any notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2011 (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.