Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 23

Guide to deletion

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Secret Story of Santa Claus

The Secret Story of Santa Claus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable self-published book. No sources. Agtx (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:BKCRIT. No sources found whatsoever beyond listings on online bookstores. ~ Rob^Talk 03:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I can't find anything to show where this book is particularly noteworthy - it doesn't seem to have received any coverage in reliable sources or even any in the unreliable sources like self-published blogs and the like. We can't use the SPS as reliable sources, but it's usually fairly telling when a book doesn't even really have coverage in those outlets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm sure that it's not indicative of the work that it is described as "a english" language book. However, nothing shows up as indicative -- no reliable sources to attest to notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (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.

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 redirect to IEEE floating point. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Octuple-precision floating-point format

Octuple-precision floating-point format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by User:\wowzeryest\ -- appears to be a vandal and/or COI user who is now redirecting articles to this one. One source only, and it appears to be a primary source. Believe the user is the primary source.

Articles which have been redirected to this article: Binary 256, Octuple-precision floating-point, Octuple-precision floating, Octuple-precision, Octuple-precision floating-point format arithmetic, Octuple-precision floating arithmetic, Octuple-precision arithmetic, Octuple arithmetic. It appears these articles were created because they would be search terms for a particular mathematical process that will now redirect to the user's pet/possible COI article? Very strange, but looks to be very suspicious, if nothing else. Also, see User page where this is their "manifesto":

"This is my (\wowzeryest\) user page. I created this as an extension of the Wikipedia. A reason for why I don't just use the regular Wikipedia is so I can make certain facts that are too controversial available on the internet (because, if i put them on the regular Wikipedia then my account might get suspended or worse). I also use this to beta-test new concepts to check their validity (don't worry, ill explicitly emphasize when something is beta-testing)...Currently, there is only 1 mathematical formula (theorized by me, but probably not originally) that I am beta-testing. There are no other things that are currently on display here...The following is a list of precursors you should know before continuing on: I always use the Cartesian coordinate system when I discuss or use vectors."

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See talk page for User:\wowzeryest explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.68.119 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, of little value, and could easily be combined with other coverage of high-precision floating point. Any sourced content could be covered in IEEE floating point, but I don't have a copy of the relevant standard to check the accuracy of this article. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to IEEE floating point and add a brief note there about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete (I do not think this even deserves a passing mention on the IEEE floating point page). No real claim of notability. I fail to see the COI, but it does not save the article. Tigraan (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a legit IEEE floating point format. Presence of this article on WP is consistent with other articles covering individual floating point formats. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Legit "IEEE floating point format", sure, but other stuff is WP:OTHERSTUFF. IEEE floating point formats are not inherently notable, and that one seems thin on the notability side. Tigraan (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to IEEE floating point, per RHaworth. The only reference in the article is to a research paper, which isn't even published in a journal, so this clearly fails WP:N. On the other hand, I can find a few weak sources here and there, so it appears to be a real thing and a brief mention in IEEE floating point seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to IEEE floating point. It's a real thing, albeit obscure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 4 July 2015 (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.