Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universitas Nasional faculty


 * 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   merge to Universitas Nasional. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Universitas Nasional faculty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was Prodded, removed by the creator. I'm nominating because the Prod concerns remain... and I'm also concerned about this editor... there was an obvious factual error introduced at George Washington University and there's a lot of deleted page creations. I don't think there's any notability for this page, and all of the individuals listed are redlinked (from prod), but at the very least I'd like more eyes on this page/set of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had to CSD multiple articles multiple times (as in recreations). Each time, the author failed to make an assertion as to why any of the subjects listed in the article are notable. I'm concerned this editor is associated with the subject of the article. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * merge Some of the people at least are unquestionably notable: the rectors. Whether the others are will need to be tested. But our routine practice is we do not make separate lists of notable faculty, but use lists of notable people associated with the university unless the number is very large, and if the number is as small as this, a section within the article is the usual solution. I suggest that the university's effort would be better directed towards making more informative web pages of its own: I was unable to see figures even the size of the university.   DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: If kept or merged, I would urge that -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per DGG and past practice. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge blue-linked and ref'd entries. Per above comments.  No reason to merge material that violates wp:LISTPEOPLE.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (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.