Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 May	27 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iaruel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. PROD was contested by an IP, by adding an afd template for a different article, but without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (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.

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. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prajnanananda Institute of Technology & Management[edit]

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

No independent references. No information as to notability. Consists only of directory information, which makes it promotional.

If it is part of a university, redirect it to the university. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kessler[edit]

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

Everything here is local, and most of it is trivial. The WSJ article does not seem to be available, but even if it is substantial coverage, it alone wouldn't show notability. The "top 50" etc .awards seem to all be top 50 etc. in New Jersey. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree on the sources' being local and/or trivial (with the possible exception of the WSJ article). She may have done some interesting things, but there aren't any independent reliable sources covering them. Aside from copy editing, cleanup, and tagging, the entire article is the product of two editors: Secretsources, a member of a large sockfarm, and Evergreenprkaren, who, judging by their username, likely has a COI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the analysis from BlackcurrantTea. Looks like self-promotion IMO, subject does not meet notability guidelines Shritwod (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think she did something great, but not sure about the references, better everyone should look deep into this matter Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Reports[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject fails to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company sourced mainly to typical start-up coverage. The brief mention in the "Green Living" article is not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, nor do I see evidence that the company meets broader WP:GNG at this point. AllyD (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed this and still do not see how this subject passes WP:CORP. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNGDlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete after it was blanked by its author. —Cryptic 02:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movit Application[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable app; zero coverage in reliable sources. CSD was declined by Appable on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to apps. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 speedy deletion (G4). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools Society[edit]

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

Unremarkable website/portal. Basically a kind of Facebook wannabe. Labels itself as "Infotainment For Students in Ghana". Google shows nothing except a Facebook page for the same group. Not notable. Was deleted via AfD two weeks ago. If deleted again, perhaps salt too? Yintan 22:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like blatant self-promotion, not notable or verifiable. Also delete File:High schools society.jpg which will become an orphaned non-free image. —Guan aco 23:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I don't see self promotion in this article. It is very notable and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corocurtis (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar page was deleted two weeks ago due to unreliable sources but they did their homework and have this times added very reliable sources. There is no breach of Wiki policy by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corocurtis (talk • contribs)

Do not delete It should not be deleted. There is no blatant self promotion. Links are very reliable and verifiable. Similar deleted two weeks ago but looks like they have rectified it this time. No breach of Wikipedia policy. Corocurtis 23:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Striking comments. You've already said that, Corocurtis. By the way, "they have rectified it"? They? You are the sole contributor to the article. Yintan 23:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am able to oppose its deletion. It is a real company with very notable links and refernces. I remember two weeks ago when it was up for deletion, I could not tal because tehr contributors seemed a bit off guard. This tiem, I made sure links were added to make it verifiable.Corocurtis 23:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corocurtis (talk • contribs)

Delete. It is copied the title. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The article was featuring text and references borrowed from another article. Cutting that away leaves just a page on the aspirations of a Facebook group/website without evidence of notability. No reason to overturn the consensus established in the previous AfD just over a fortnight ago. AllyD (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G4 - this is identical to the page that was previously deleted. Filled with WP:SOAPy language too. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 08:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Oneness Trinidad and Tobago 2017[edit]

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

Basic search reveals that the subject does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I got a little excited when I found some articles in The Guardian, until I realized it wasn't The Guardian but http://www.guardian.co.tt/ -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 07:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Milan attack[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news, see WP:NOTNEWS. The event is non-notable, see Wikipedia:Notability_(events) (lasting effects, depth and duration of coverage).

Furthermore, it is noted that the perpetrator was under the influence, and attacked the police officers only when asked for identity papers, so it wasn't even a premeditated attack. This appears to be a common crime, with no victims, and nobody was injured apart from the policeman and the two soldiers.

I don't want to show disrespect for the officers, but it appears to be already "yesterday's news". Simo94 / ^discuss 22:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nom is mistaken, Individuals who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are regularly convicted of terrorism. Being dunk and being an ideologically-motivated terrorist are not mutually exclusive categories. Being under the influence is not a defense for committing assault or attempted murder. Individuals who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are regularly convicted of terrorism-related crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:UNDUE and excessive coverage of a news story. This could be a paragraph in an article on "Islamic attacks in Europe", if that article could be written without bias. Having this be a stand-alone article is excessive. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note "Police are now investigating whether Hosni, who had dual Tunisian and Italian citizenship, had links to terrorist organizations. Authorities cautioned that they were not prepared to classify the incident as terrorism, but said there were several videos devoted to "Islamic State" (IS) terrorist ideology posted to a Facebook account believed to belong to Hosni. The suspect is currently being held under attempted murder charges."[1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. Through a quick google search, I couldn't find a single mainstream media source such as CNN, Fox News, etc. mentioning this event at all. If the incident gains attention in the coming months, we could always recreate it. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 12:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Norway[edit]

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

This is an unsourced stub predicting the name of Norway if it ever becomes a republic (it's currently a monarchy), followed by equally predictions of riots and the overthrow of the monarchy upon the death of the current King, all written in 10 minutes by user:Eivindgh. It was shortly thereafter redirected to Norway by user:4ing with the rationale WP:Crystal ball. In my opinion the redirect to Norway is misleading, particularly as Republicanism in Norway is a redlink and Norwegian Republican Alliance (the closest match I've found, and the only post-1945 Norwegian organisation in Category:Republicanism in Norway) is described as a "minor political party" based in one county. I've nominated this here and not at RfD because there it would almost certainly be closed with consensus to revert and nominate the text of the article at AfD (a course of action I've recommended on several occasions and would do on this if nominated by someone else. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classic crystal balling, and more than a touch of POV-pushing as well, I'd suspect. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theoretical scenario proposed by one wikipedia editor, with no body of interest and no substantial references Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any news confirming the claim. Norway is still monarchy. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Norway is still a monarchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not-a-crystal-ball reasons. --Lockley (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG; no source for dubious claims about republicanism's popularity. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2017 (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.

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 withdrawn. It is also a secondary school. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonides S. Virata Memorial School[edit]

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

Non-notable school per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:16, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Feelings[edit]

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

Cursory search turns up no evidence of this film, failing WP:NFILM. Honestly it sounds like something that some kids made one day... but not clear-cut enough that I felt it could be WP:A11-ed. PROD removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

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

Non-enyclopedic, steadily changing, tendentious entries. Goes against Wikipedia's goals. *thing goes (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given how many times this has been nominated for deletion but kept, I think this nomination should be considered incomplete and inadequate until it addresses and responds to those past discussions. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, groups notable entities by defining characteristic. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'd even say it could be argued that a WP:SPEEDYKEEP is in order due to the multiple glaring flaws in the nomination. My initial reaction when coming upon this article was WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, but what I did was to start an RFC that succeeded in narrowing the scope to include only those persons who already have a Wikipedia article. Any person whose article is later deleted is removed from the list. This is therefore a list of related, notable subjects, which is perfectly in step with what lists are for. "Steadily changing" and "tendentious entries" are manifestly not reasons to delete an article. We'd have to scrap millions of articles if those were valid arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear list criteria of people who satisfy the BLP notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links to people with their own page, so by definition and by wikipedia standards, they should be notable. but may be change title"Notable youtubers? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above and a very poor nom - Goes against Wikipedia's goals - please explain that one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Encyclopedic, steadily updated. Tenditious nomination, goes against Wikipedia's goals. Peacock (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You-tubing is now a professional just like other professions. There should be a list of notable YouTubers just like List of artists and other lists. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SNOW) and a trout for the nom. It's been nominated many times before, and this one doesn't even include specific reasons. "Non-enyclopedic" and "goes against Wikipedia's goals" are more or less the same, and equally vague. "steadily changing" is perfectly fine. "tendentious entries" - the inclusion criteria is fairly clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walligal[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Nishidani with the following rationale:

"Walligal strikes me as a hoax. Despite the link, it is unsourced. No such name exists in Norman Tindale's exhaustive list of Australian aboriginal tribes, and google books fails to turn up even one example. It is obviously based on the Chinese character John, a stockman in Joseph Furphy's Such is Life who says 'Walligal Alp' (meaning 'Warrigal Alf') (Lloyd O'Neill publishers, Melbourne 1970 p.190). Perhaps the hoaxer wasn't even thinking of that, but of his dialect where the word wally means a dumbo prone to errors, who however can 'gull' (gal) people, making them out to be dupes." -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was originally started in December 2009 using text added to a stub template by an IP editor. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IndigenousAustralia-stub&diff=329643764&oldid=329642288 --NSH001 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any non mirror entry anywhere. Only mention is as per book above. The closest I could find was a reference to Walligal Lake "Abos", which just happens to be just south of Sydney (the reference that is, I could not find the lake), and there was only one out of 0.5G digitised historical and current records. Looks like a hoax or mistaken extrapolation of the book above. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that sounds like Wallaga Lake, which is an aboriginal community, but well south of Sydney.--Grahame (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did think of that, but could not tie it together. (FYI ref here) There are also many references to various warrigal all over the place . . ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2017 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles Veen[edit]

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

Armature 5th level team in Netherlands. Stub pages for all teams have been created over the years mostly with no sources.

To start let me point you to this article: Football in the Netherlands. It gives a decent overview of the football structure in the Netherlands.

Looking at current guidelines for teams we are pointed to WP:ORG and WP:WikiProject Football/Notability. There is also an essay that gives some guidance at WP:NCLUB.

The teams in this league are listed on 2016–17 Hoofdklasse but only a couple individual teams are sourced to the level of meeting WP:ORG.

There are some sources out there but I can not verify them or speak to their independence. Seems these local clubs that play on Saturdays or Sundays and are comprised of local armatures are not inherently notable and without meeting WP:CORP should be removed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club has played in the national cup (see e.g. 2016–17 KNVB Cup) which is generally accepted to confer notability on clubs (see similar AfD here). Number 5 7 11:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in national cup, therefore notable. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Seems to be plenty on them in Dutch media as well for GNG from a simple Google search. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Bain[edit]

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

Roderick Bain was an enlisted man with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. He fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium but does not meet WP:SOLDIER. He survived the War, went home, got on with his life (becoming a teacher), and eventually died at home but does not meet WP:GNG. He was not represented in the Band of Brothers miniseries. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not bad for a WP:MEMORIAL article, but the subject is not notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:Memorial does apply. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:SIGCOV. Anotherclown (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability, unfortunately. --Lockley (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Mudd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Jasonakagary88 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Also it looks suspeciously like WP:AUTOBIO after checking on the editor who started the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant criteria Spiderone 07:44, 4 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel K. Longman[edit]

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

Longman is a writer on local topics who lacks any clear indication of passing writer or academic notability guidelines, and none of the sources pass the combined reliable and indepth test to show passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A prolific author with a press publishing popular (non-academic) history. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable as an author. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOSOON at best. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 07:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor niger[edit]

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

This is a direct copy of the Kingdom of Koya article with an added first portion that appears to be a badly translated essay of some sort, with numerous unsourced claims. If there's any salvageable content it belongs on the other page. PROD was removed by creator without any issues being addressed. This same content appears to have been spammed to multiple other Wikis. JamesG5 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete article is pure nonsense. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad translation, a copy of the other article and a lack of reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems to be some sort of essay not an encyclopedia article. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete crazy mutterings, and redirect to Kingdom of Koya [[2]] Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: this nonsense. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It has all the feel of OR except where forking the other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Lockley (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all of the above except don't think a redirect is necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit Pandey[edit]

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

Non notable body builder. Claims to have been Mr. India 2016, though the official winner was Vishnu Raj Menon. The source for the audacious claim is a column in a local newspaper, where people can contribute information about themselves, in which he had provided the said information. Another Mr. India event exists among bodybuilders, though he has not won that either. All other achievements seem to be trivial. Also reads like a resume and seems to have been created and edited by a single purpose editor. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 17:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject doesn't meet the requirements for notability. Non-notable competitions, no significant coverage. The article is also overly promotional in tone and written like a CV. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GSS-1987: Sources are not reliable and independent, and appears to have no coverage. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:25, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. In my view, the "merge" opinions are better argued, but there's no consensus for a merger here. This discussion can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 07:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Apology of Scanderbeg[edit]

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

This article is almost incomprehensible, due to a combination of poor English, non-neutral viewpoint, and lack of organization. The only reference is to a work in a foreign language that (contrary to the statement of this article) is not Latin. If this is meant to be an article about the work, it should cite both the work and reliable sources who have stated that the work is notable. As it is, this does not establish notability as to whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be dramatically improved, and it appears that Albanian editors are currently doing so. I suspect that sources do exist, though they are not present. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or potentially redirect to Frang Bardhi (where it is already mentioned). There are a lot of problems here, not the least of which is that most of the text is a (probably machine-translated) copyvio of this source. That notwithstanding, there has clearly been at least one full cycle of translation for some of this material, and as a result it gets a lot simply wrong. "Tomko Margnavici" is Ivan Tomko Mrnavić (also styled as the Latinized Tomeus Marnavitius, but never as anything similar to "Margnavici"), for example. And the actual title of the work—Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotatum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus—has a rather different generally recognized English translation than given here. Finally, the title here is something of an issue, and makes me nervous about a redirect; there are exactly two sources that refer to this work as the "Apology of Scanderbeg" (or Skanderbeg): one is the source that this is largely copied from, and the other is a trivial mention on the website of the municipal library in Lezhë. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am pretty sure it is notable, as I have found a journal article that specifically addresses this work (written in Albanian, but the abstract is in English).[3] It refers to this as notable as the first polemic written by an Albanian about an Albanian subject. I don't think it is well known in English but if this is a translation of the commonly used (in ALbania) abbreviated title, I don't have a problem with it - we certainly don't want to call it Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus if we can avoid it (although I would suggest, since it is a translation and not a commonly used English name, that we rename to use the Skanderbeg spelling used elsewhere on en.wiki for the hero). I have tried to clean up the language and removed the over-the-top praise given the author, and there is more work to be done - there is a quote that is poorly translated. However, I think it likely meets the bar for notability, so we should look at improving rather than deleting it. Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It feels notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would be worth an article, except that there is a real problem with the title that would make it preferable to merge. TThe current one is is a made-up title for the book. It appears there is no convenient title in any modern language. The Latin title cited above Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus is the title of the book, . We could give a literal translation--there's a source for one in Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Albania as published[4]], found also in the same word in that writer's A biographical dictionary of Albanian History -- it would be George Castrioti of Epirus, commonly called Scanderbeg, the very mighty and invincible prince of Epirus restored to his people and his country, as mentioned also in the article. The article must be called one or the other. It would be easier to find if it were merged in the article for the author. According to WP:N, meeting the notability standard does not guarantee an article if there are other considerations. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in the refs by Lulëzim Lajçi, and the numerous google books results[5] suggest to me that the subject is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:11, 31 May 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete. by User:Ks0stm as WP:A7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hitzig[edit]

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

Author removed the PROD tag with no explanation, claim of notability seems false and BC horseshoue association doesn't seem notable. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll begrudgingly consider that it makes a credible claim of significance and so is exempt from speedy deletion. Note, however, that the subject is not actually listed in the championship records linked, neither for the Canadian Junior Boys Horseshoe Pitching Championship (including the B Class), nor the provincial British Columbia Junior Boys Division. All that aside, WP:NSPORTS restricts most athlete coverage to "competition at the highest level"; even if he were a high school champion, that would not meet the standard (which, for horseshoes, would be the NHPA World Tournament). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete neither source listed actually backs up the claims in the article. The article as a whole is absurd. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete subject is not mentioned in either of the two sources and searching does not result in an coverage. Article does not have a credible claim of significance and seems like a hoax. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No credible claim of significance is being made, and no reliable source coverage about him is being shown. Although I doubt that the article is an outright hoax per se, it is indeed a silly article which claims nothing noteworthy or verifiable or even interesting — this is a jokey stunt between classmates, if anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person is in no way notable whatsoever. Zero evidence shown. Jazz4477 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2017 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18th IIFA Awards[edit]

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

Not sourced. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Alexf505 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the awards are in July, and apparently the nominations have been made already. While WP:CRYSTAL applies, really the only thing that's left to do is fill in who wins. Is it worth deleting this just to reinstate it a month later? Primefac (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-running award whose nominations have been published. Obviously, there's some quality work to be done here to bring this up to the standard of the previous 17 articles in the series, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to the idea that WP:CRYSTAL mandates deletion here; it is almost certain to occur, there is useful content to be included at this point, and we know it will be recreated in about 8 weeks even if deleted, so doing so strikes me as pure bureaucracy. Obviously, this needs some sourcing, but 30 seconds at Google gives no shortage of options to choose from. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think I'm going to slap {{in use}} on it since I've already had a few (edit conflict)s cleaning it up. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing has been added, so I'd say the nom's basic concern has been met. Nate • (chatter) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially with the improvements and thanks to the editors who supplied them. Since there are articles for the previous 17 I don't think that "Not Directory" applies. MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and Primefac. I am a approver of keeping articles about events with less than ~5 months to go until it happens. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Primefac. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2017 (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.

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 and redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz[edit]

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

Subject in question not notable. Only claim to fame is her appearance in a reality tv show still in progress. The article reads like a fanpage. Very little biographical content, page consists mainly of summaries about irrelevant accomplishments on the show. Trafalk09 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not evident. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5). She has been covered in some sources, but it appears to have been more due to her stint in ANTM than her actual modelling career and thus doesn't appear to be independently notable of the show, at least at the moment. However, a redirect wouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:00, 4 June 2017 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greens Worldwide Incorporated[edit]

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

Delete. PROD was declined 9 1/2 years ago. DuckDuckGo search shows only directory-type info. and press releases, none of which reach the level of significant coverage required by WP:NCORP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, at best. This little capsule news report from Bloomberg is about the most significant coverage out there (it does at least give the company's naming history...). From the project's notability standpoint, Greens Worldwide is really only notable (to the extent that it is at all) for taking ownership of the US Pro Golf Tour. Accordingly, I'd suggest a redirect to that title (some of the corporate history from the Bloomberg blurb could theoretically be added in, perhaps in an "Ownership" section of an expanded article). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysanne Stathacos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Scarce disc. in reliable sources. Winged Blades^Godric 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Th references in the article as it stands are pretty poor quality. But I think her entry in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary is determinative regarding retention. There's quite a bit further out there as well ("The Banquet" got coverage in New York, for example). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is but a coverage of a city-event.It does not vouch for her notability!Winged Blades^Godric 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am ... unconvinced that the "notability is not inherited" argument means that coverage of an artist's performance art does not contribute to satisfying notability for that artist. That said, depending on the New York article to meet the standard is hardly necessary. The Brooklyn Museum's Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art provides a biography of Stathacos. The National Gallery of Canada does likewise (although it does so to provide background for their holdings of her correspondence and records, it is clear from the biography provided that the gallery considers her significant). She's been the topic of at least a couple of articles in Lion's Roar which are actually already cited in the article; this magazine has a well-established editorial board and is almost certainly a reliable source within its field. An installation of her work in Nebraska received extensive coverage from the Whitehot Magazine of Contemporary Art (whose editor-in-chief, Noah Becker is notable in the field; it is likely a reliable source for our purposes). Narrower coverage of specific works and installations is also widely available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep"" - Better referencing required but appears notable due to multiple factors. Jazz4477 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of article is notable, and works have been widely exhibited and collected internationally for decades. Keep and improve. Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:ARTIST with works in the collection of major museums. Mduvekot (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - museum collections and entry in dictionary seal the deal for me

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 keep. With no disrespect to the nominator's rationale, the consensus out here is tending towards Keep. Apart from the points forwarded by the keep !voters towards not deleting the article, there is also compelling discussion about WP:NSEASONS and its application in this case, which too supports the keep camp. If the nominator or the delete !voter wishes more clarification, I can provide them on my talk page. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Can-Am League season[edit]

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

Non Notable season of independent baseball league. There is no indication in the article about what makes this season of the league notable and the sourcing in the article is all routine game recaps. WP:NSPORTS says season articles are notable in the top professional leagues. The Can-Am League is way below that. Article was prodded, deleted and then restored by article creator himself, abusing his tools as an administrator. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a point of clarification, I opened a discussion on the article's talk page which was not addressed, so I felt the article was unfairly deleted without discussion. This is the proper avenue to go about deleting articles. Anyways, WP:SPORTS says "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues." This is not an article on any team's season, but rather the league's season. The general consensus on Wikipedia has been to keep articles on professional league seasons, no matter the level in other sports. I know, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but there are just so many countless examples of league season articles in minor professional and even junior sports leagues in other sports. Why is baseball any different? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is our consensus that only top leagues should have season articles, not independent minor leagues. I see no reason to change that or make an exception for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is baseball any different than soccer or hockey in this regard? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which soccer and hockey leagues that are as low level as this one have season articles? Spanneraol (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hockey we go right down into junior amateur leagues. That being said hockey in Canada is religion so pretty much any league is covered in news papers. One would think baseball is likely the same in the US for atleast pro leagues. Hell we have team season articles for leagues that are 2 levels below the NHL but that is fairly uncommon mostly because people don't tend to create them, but we don't bar them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - As for soccer, it seems every single country's top pro league has season articles, even small city states like Gibraltar. See 2016–17 Gibraltar Premier Division for a random example. Closer to home, there is this: 2017 League1 Ontario season. I can tell you the CanAm league definitely gets more coverage here in Ottawa than Leauge1.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I can buy that hockey is religion in Canada, meaning leagues like the OHL and QMJHL might have sufficient coverage to be noteworthy. It's not the case for minor baseball leagues though. Most of that coverage is minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but I can tell you for a fact that the Can-Am league gets pretty significant coverage in the Ottawa area, since it's the only baseball team in this market. I can't speak for the other markets, to be fair. It certainly gets more coverage than "Ligue1" which I only know about through Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The local team gets routine coverage (as par for the course for sports journalism, it is typically partly promotional, partly coverage of local community events); it's not clear to me the league gets any significant coverage unrelated to the local team. But this is really just a side note; I'm not sure what standard should be used to determine if a season should have an article. isaacl (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is that coverage also ends up covering the team they are playing which is non-local coverage. And the references from different cities covering different events all add up to significant coverage from multiple sources. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No te: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long standing consensus wiki-wide that professional sports leagues can have season articles. Hell most major amateur leagues easily meet the source coverage requirement for it in most sports. NSPORTS mentions teams because leagues for all professional leagues was well established consensus. When we wrote NSPORTS we were trying to make sure that didn't spread to teams for all pro leagues as well. For what its worth soon as a prod is objected to it can be recreated so its not really an issue that it was him that recreated it. (and that isn't even mentioning that his comment on the talk page should have been taken as an objection which would have blocked deletion anyways. Whomever deleted it did so improperly) -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying its ok to write a season article about the United Shore Professional Baseball League? Every pro sports league? The Can-Am League isnt even affiliated.. it's an indy league... I don't think every season of it is notable. The article sure doesnt show that.Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Affiliated has nothing to do with it, it comes down to WP:GNG like all things do. If news papers/sources cover it, we have articles for it. Can you honestly say news papers in the cities with professional sports teams are not writing about the seasons of their pro teams? There may very well be cases where some aren't but I think you would have to search pretty hard to find one. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, this seems to be misreading of WP:NSEASONS, which refers to "individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues." There is no guideline for baseball that is different from soccer or hockey in this regard. There will be plenty of citations in regional news media. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The twenty games featuring the Cuban national team must count for something, too. That could surely be expanded. There is plenty of coverage because of the "baseball diplomacy" of the Cuban national team. Media coverage far exceeded "routine game recaps." WP:OVERKILL would be easy, but WP:BLUE; it easily passes WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article a little, including nine additional non-trivial citations. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NSEASONS only applies to team seasons, there is nothing in there that says league seasons can't be notable. And this particular season is clearly notable judging by the citations, as are most other professional sports seasons. Cleary passes WP:GNG and any other relevant criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (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.

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 Nenskra hydro power plant. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nenskra Hydropower Project[edit]

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

The article contains zero citations to reliable, independent sources; the "External Links" section only contains the websites of companies involved in the project. A Google search turns up several links, however, they seem to focus on the environmental impact of the dam, which is covered (albeit briefly) by Nenskra hydro power plant. The main purpose of this article appears to be to promote the project: the section titled "Environmental and Social Impact Assessment" only talks about how the impact "will be as low as possible", etc., and the rest seems to be an attempt to describe the benefits of the dam. The entire thing appears to be a soapbox, and probably shouldn't be here. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a duplicate of Nenskra hydro power plant. Shall we simply redirect? There is an awful lot of content, perhaps some of it is worth transferring? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed merge to + from tags on the articles, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. Redirects at editorial discretion; the sole !keep vote does not address the notability concerns Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slater family[edit]

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

Has been uncited for over 4 years. No indication this particular term Slater Family meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just plot summary. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlie Slater as a potential valid search term (plus it already has links to it and there is potential for it to be a properly sourced article in the future). Article is just plot summary. Note that the article hasn't been uncited for four years - it has been a redirect for most of its time. The article was created on 1 May 2013 but was purely plot summary so was redirected. It stayed that way from 2 May 2013‎ to 19 March 2015‎. Its recreation was purely plot summary so it was then a redirect again from 14 April 2015‎ to 21 May 2017‎. The current version is not an improvement on either of its previous incarnations. —anemone projectors— 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect to Charlie Slater was idiotic. Nobody can disagree with that. This pages gives information to the family connections of the whole of the Slater family - Charlie's page does not. TazminDaytime (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the article meets WP:GNG? —anemone projectors— 18:04, 30 May 2017 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cavaco (surname)[edit]

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

Only one extant link; the only reason I'm bringing it here as it seems to have survived seven years as is and I want to check nothing's amiss. Laun chba ller 20:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but because Aníbal Cavaco Silva (given name) and Luís Cavaco (surname) exist, I think it meets WP:APONOTE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: two more entries added so now the article meets WP:APONOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not up on policy, but the obvious options are either keep or move to Cavaco (disambiguation). More entries have been added, so it now includes 3 people, a placename and a guitar also known as a cavaco (a redirect). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. It's a valid page now with multiple entries. It should probably be at Cavaco (disambiguation) though, but as long as both names redirect to the page, it should be fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:26, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Joseph Yu Kai Wong. Sandstein 16:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha education[edit]

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

Promotionally worded article which is unsupported by any of the sources given. Cabayi (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi! Quick note - this was part of a student assignment with Western University, so it wasn't meant to be promotional. I'll talk this over with the student and see if there is a way to possibly save the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something to take into consideration is that the organization's founder, Joseph Yu Kai Wong, has an article. If this isn't considered to be independently notable, we (by which I mean the student or any other interested party) could selectively merge some information into the parent article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Selective Merge to Joseph Yu Kai Wong, to provide more context about the organization. Some sources exist (e.g. [6], [7], [8]), but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 and redirect to Greenbörg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazali Elementary School Jhang[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete elementary schools are almost never notable, and the article makes no claim of notability, nor are there obvious references. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its locality as per long standing agreed procedure (Greenbörg take note). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that policy (which overrides 'guidelines') states that redirection is preferable to outright deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2017 (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.

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 Triple Crown Tournament . -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1993 British Isles Championship[edit]

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

These kind of leagues are not notable as no notable cricketer is playing in the league. Following seasons can't establish notability so I nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability of the players taking part (and there are a number of notable players who have appeared in some of the games e.g. Ian Stanger,George Salmond,Gavin Hamilton,Ed Joyce,Kyle McCallan) is not important, as WP:NOTINHERIT. Important thing is if there are sources available that show that the tournaments were considered notable in their own right. The main source seems to be Cricket Europe, but that is not enough for me. I'd merge the lot into Triple Crown Tournament Spike 'em (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the players in this 1993 match have played first-class and List-A cricket, and in some cases ODIs. Spike 'em (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the league isn't first-class or List A matches, so we don't need articles for every season. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. These competitions played a role in the development of cricket in Ireland and Scotland, and a level of coverage would be suitable, but definitely not as detailed as currently present. Harrias ^talk 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Articles not notable, and not apparently useful. Elliot321 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. All of these articles are short, including the Triple Crown Tournament parent article, and while these tournaments maybe not be notable as individual tournaments, the content should be merged into the parent article, which is not up for AFD.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament - agree with Spike'em and Patar's points. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we merging or are we deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a comment because I am ignorant of the subject, but I do not see that any of the delete comments give a reason why merge is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be happy with merge. Greenbörg (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. I understand Sandstein relisted this Afd; but I read three editors supporting the keeping of this article with acceptable supporting rationale, and none, including HighKing, directly opposing the stand. In the closing of this Afd, I also note that the nominator has not opposed the keep !votes subsequently. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maha Petroleum[edit]

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

Procedural nomination - article makes a limited claim to notability (the owner of service stations), and an internet search generates fairly little by way of coverage. But as the speedy is contested it seemed worth bringing here for wider review. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. By way of background there are three major filling station chains in Oman - Royal Dutch Shell, Omanoil, and Al Maha. I wrote this article to ensure all three were included in Wikipedia. I suspect that the claims of low notoriety are owing to the fact that most of the press about the company would be in Arabic. But they had a net profit of RO 8.1 Million in 2016 (over $21 million USD) [9], and I suspect that if they were a company in the English-speaking world, not only would the article not be up for deletion, but it would have been written a decade ago. (See Aloha Petroleum or USA Gasoline for example.) I can also say from my trip to Oman that Al Maha stations are everywhere in the country, as common as 7-Elevens in the US. Foreign does not mean unnotable. Incaseitsmissing (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incaseitsmissing, perhaps you could dig up some sources - even if they're in another language, it doesn't matter for the purposes of establishing credibility. As it stands, despite the information you've provided above, until you provide an independent source, we have no way of knowing the facts. For all we know, you could be making the entire topic up (it has happened before!) although I'd bet that you aren't. As the article creator, don't expect other editors to do your work for you though. If no sources can be provided, then notability cannot be established and the article will be deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Times okay? [10] Incaseitsmissing (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- well, this source states that the company went public in 2004: Facing Human Capital Challenges of the 21st Century. And here are some corruption charges: Oman oil company former officials jailed for corruption. So probably squeaks by on WP:LISTED & GNG. Also, if I'm doing my math right: 418 rial is just over $1bln in annual revenue, and companies of this size tend to be notable. More sources are likely to be available in Arabic. On the balance of things, it's a keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with above comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:17, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Thompson (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Can find no indepth coverage just a lot of listings and passing mentions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Patrick Thompson (artist). — Paleo Neonate — 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:PatrickBKThompson. — Paleo Neonate — 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:Duckerdog. — Paleo Neonate — 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate — 20:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Canadian Art Foundation put them on a list of 16 great Canadian art collaborations in 2016.[11] So, I feel like there may be something to this artist. However, I also feel this article may need a drastic overhaul. (The SPAs introducing copyvio text don't help.) I'd rather see it worked on than deleted at this time, but I'm willing to revisit in three to six months if the sourcing doesn't come together. I'd also think moving to Draft space is an acceptable outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (although I wouldn't rule out a move/rename) Thompsons' projects such as Embassy of Imagination (involving Thompson, Alexa Hatanaka, and teenagers from Cape Breton), have attracted a significant amount of press, some of which is in the article. Thompson doesn't seem to have got much coverage as an individual artist for his work, but there's a stronger case for the notability of these projects under some title (and as an artist who played a significant part in notable work, Thompson would technically meet WP:ARTIST). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NARTIST, having 'played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.' — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose. as an article on the project.. There is evidence that the project is notable, but there is no indication that his role in it is particularly significant. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NARTIST, GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Condominio Residenza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Due diligence: Talk:Casa_Condominio_Residenza#research_for_notability --David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content (size of building) and photograph in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is manmade, you can easily see it from my spacecraft where i am trapped with my computer stuck limiting me to a text interface where all i can do is edit in Wikipedia. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. --do ncr am 02:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size based on a photograph, that requires no WP:RS, not even WP:RS to establish the size you claim the photograph proves. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content on size of building I meant was the information in the article that the building has 46 floors and is 138 m (453 ft) tall. While the photo does also contribute to understanding that it is a significant feature, there is no question whether or not this is large. As pointed out by another editor on the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burano (building), another Toronto tall building, a major structure like this is also significant as a populated place - it has the equivalent population of a small town. --do ncr am 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of inhabitants does not establish notability. This building as only 440 units. A Boeing 747 can carry up to 600 passengers. Does that mean every 747 and perhaps every flight of a 747 is notable? Compare that with the smallest towns in a various U.S. states: Coolville, Ohio; Bombay_Beach, California; or Luckenbach, Texas. These small towns have history and character and hence WP:RS to make them notable. The inside of this 440 unit building most likely has the character of a non place ([12] [13]) with no history or anything notable worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. But if there is WP:RS about the building or some important event that took place there, etc., I will certainly reconsider, but I am not buying the argument that size and population make something notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an AFD initiated over a nautical vessel someone made a similar argument to your 747 argument, comparing ships with modern military aircraft. They pointed out that modern military aircraft can cost more than freighters, tankers, even cruise ships, yet we don't have articles about each B52 or sr71.
The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. A military pilot, whose plane is shot down, can hop into a replacement plane, and trust it will behave just like his original. Further planes fly in squadrons of identical planes, that all get assigned the same mission.
There is of course a pair of 747s that do have their own article - the 747s that US Presidents use. That pair of 747s do have a standalone article.
In the old Soviet Bloc there were huge housing estates, each identical to one another. Lots of buildings, are "one-offs", more like ships that 747s.
Well, maybe the differences are all trivial? Sometimes they will be.
So long as we are going to compare articles, across article type, what about highways, canals, nuclear plants? You may be suggesting that infrastructure, like ships, canals, highways, airports, can't be notable unless there has been a disaster, or something else that could be considered a notable event, happened there. Is that part of what you are trying to say? Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. Exactly. The long list of Template:Toronto_skyscrapers are mostly interchangeable and unnotable, being effectively non places as I said before. The exception is for buildings that have high quality independent WP:SECONDARY coverage that is not promotional. This article purported to be WP:RS for one of these buildings shows just how interchangeable these unnotable buildings are, making my argument for me. It might as well be a list on craigslist of available apartment rentals (e.g. [14]), where the only thing that distinguishes them is price, floor space, whether pets are allowed, etc. Do you consider that to be WP:RS of establishing notability too?

I'm not going to comment on the notability standards for infrastructure, which I have not encountered. If you want to do the research and show me what you have found, be my guest. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WRT this idea you seem to want to rely on, the "non place" ... Did you explain your thinking on this idea more fully on some other page? Can you point to an actual wikidocument that discusses this idea?
I just clicked on it, and was very surprised you were directing me to a wikipedia article, not a wikidocument.
So I looked at the bare-url links you put next your other link to non place. The first one seems to be a generic mystery novel, at least from the first page and a half, that happened to have a chapter heading "non places". Unless you tell us how this book is relevant to this discussion I hope it is okay with you if I don't bother reading more than the first page and a half.
Your second link is to an abstract. It is an abstract of an article from the Journal of Urban Design. Did you, David Tornheim, actually read the original article, yourself? It seems to me, from the abstract, that the Journal published a philosophical op-ed kind of article, which, if you and I actually hunted it down, we would find would undermine the point you are trying to make, not support it, at all.
Frankly I don't think offering these links, implying that others should follow them, to understand you more fully, was a good use of anyone's time, my time, your time, anyone's time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the wiki link to non place and the two others external links so you could understand what I meant when I used the term "non place". I suggest you read the first paragraph of non place. The first external link is to the book by Marc Augé in which he coined the term. That book is mentioned in the first paragraph, third sentence of non place. The cover page of the book, which shows up if you scroll to the very beginning of the PDF shows the image of people in a typical airport (that could be anywhere the world) giving a very good idea of what he means by a non place. I agree the early text looks like a novel, but it is just a very short story that used to introduce examples (like the airport picture) of what it is like to live in a bunch of non-places like the airport, the airplane, the ATM machine, chain stores, etc. It is a non-fiction book to talk about the concept and critical theory of non-places, which is directly related to architecture, such as the many buildings being constructed in downtown Toronto. I have it on my shelf because as I am very interested in architecture and what differentiates good work that that stimulates vitality and community from work that alienates humans from each other. The second link is to show that the term is relevant to architecture and urban design, being mentioned in a scholarly journal. I am amused that you assume that an article that takes seriously the concept of non place will somehow show that a building that looks like a hotel (which Augé identifies as a kind of non-place) is something other than a non-place. Well. I hope this makes more sense. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as I wrote at another AFD nominator initiated, my own web search confirmed for me there that the due diligence they claimed they made fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: So we are supposed to just trust that there is high quality WP:RS out there that establishes notability that you found and if anyone asks about the source of notability, we'll just say, "Well, Geo Swan says it is notable and he found some RS, so therefore it must be notable."? Seriously? If you have WP:RS establishing notability, let's see it. Better yet, put it in the article too and then we can end this charade. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AI named Hal in my spaceship just chirped "Geo Swan" is right, and Hal promised to add to the article eventually, after he finsihes melting some asteroids. --do ncr am 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This building may be more notable in combination with the neighboring, related CASA 2 (aka CASA II) and the soon-to-be-completed CASA 3 (aka CASA III). Perhaps an article for all three buildings, although I'm not sure how that would be appropriately titled. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the three really are related (e.g. by common developer or owners, and/or by architecture), a combination article would be fine. It could be titled by listing them all, as in "Casa Condominio Residenza, Casa 2, and Casa 3" if no more compact term is found. If they were known in practice as "Casa Condominio Residenza Complex" that would be convenient, but I wouldn't coin such a term, i would only use it if it is actually used IRL. --do ncr am 03:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with this is a good suggestion -- all three condos should be covered in a single article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I'm saying keep in the expectation that we end up with one article for the three buildings. Combined, they are notable. Each one individually, maybe that is debatable. They do have the same developer (Cresford Developments), architect (architectsAlliance) and style, and are in reasonable proximity (33 Charles Street East, 42 Charles Street East, 50 Charles Street East, respectively). Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant content, resulting in a promotional article. The article contains copy such as:

in November, 2005, the Casa was one of the three condos with the greatest units sold -- 81 units.[3] Residents took occupancy in October 2008.[4][5][6]

This is routine for any development. The sources do not establish a case for why this building needs an encyclopedia entry. The content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burano (building) closed "Keep", and this should too. I !voted "Keep" above. --do ncr am 22:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of Peter Clewes's reputation as a significant architect. Yes, it would be better if all three phases (or structures) appeared in the same article. --Lockley (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towers of such scope have a significant impact on the local landscape and it's of no surprise Metro News described this tower as such. Along with this being the work of a notable architect and the independent coverage, it does pass the threshold of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunas Bangsa School[edit]

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

Was deprodded with rationale that "secondary schools are generally notable". While secondary schools are usually notable, this one has an incredible dearth of sourcing. Searches turned virtually nothing on the search engines, except for a couple of trivial mentions on scholar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that per this February 2017 RFC, an argument based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is what the above is, is no longer valid. That discussion resolved that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Therefore, sourcing to show that they are notable needs to be provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Did you fulfil your obligations set out at the RfC? Namely "a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media" AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not what it says. It says four things, one of which goes to your point: "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD." This is quite different than your statement. And yes, I did, recognizing that there might be print sources I prodded the article, in hopes that the creator or another editor might add such sources, since I don't live in Indonesia. But the fact that the school has been around for almost 20 years, in a country like Indonesia, which has a vibrant media, and there was virtually nothing to be found on it, made me think that this might very well not be that notable an institution. When it was deprodded using the schooloutcomes rationale, with no additional sourcing (and still none, over two weeks after being tagged), I brought it to the community for discussion. But thanks for your outstanding example of AGF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per DEL8 and FAILN) because the available coverage falls far short of the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required by the notability guideline for schools. Rebb ing 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, and in the de-PROD, secondary schools are generally notable. A lack of English-language sources isn't too surprising for a school in Indonesia, and we shouldn't let that bias us. I don't have the foreign language knowledge necessary to find specific sources, but secondary schools generally have sources in some language. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it is worth, the local region's newspaper id:Tribun Pontianak appears to have news coverage of this school.[15]. That's typically why people have always defaulted to saying secondary schools are notable. In our early days that typically meant articles on U.S. high schools, which are very easy to source.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as offered source above will be enough including additional attempts at others would help, the one delete vote's policy basis is in fact not a serious violation, of say copyvio or advertising, therefore not an immediate "case closed", therefore still open to further examination and, considering news have been found, answers the question. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided above are enough to meet GNG without relying on SCHOOLOUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - several of the keep !votes above claim, "the sources provided above are enough to meet GNG" - not sure how 7 trivial mentions meet the criteria of GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School Bogray[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schooloutcomes 2. Can be proven to exist. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep of all user's noms below this on the daily log Generally I frown on clear 'nominate the lot in alphabetical order without any WP:BEFORE done' noms (especially for an entire country's system of higher education), which all of these are, clearly. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep. The nom didn't bother to give each of these articles individual consideration, so why should we? (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government Colony High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per above. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government Boys High School Makwal Kalan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 'Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazali Public School Amana Abad[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Wishers College Daska[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation College Attock[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azm-e-Nau School & College[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:25, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Public Secondary School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:26, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep as although there's one vote for delete, this is clearly in violation of WP:Articles for deletion which states against mass nominations and especially when using the same worded basis for all, thus cannot be confided as an acceptable nomination. A good standing nomination can be made if needed. nac SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tameer-e-Watan School Hasilpur[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one has no references, and I'm not sure if it's a primary school or a high school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:29, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KRL Model College Kahuta[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kin's International Public High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kamal Boys High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kehkashan Army Public School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honours School System, Lahore[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider these nominations, on the grounds (1) the first sentence of the reason for deletion doesn't make sense in the English language, (2) it's arguing for redirection not deletion (WP:BEFORE C4), and (3) swamping AfD with articles is bad form. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Salamat International Campus for Advanced Studies. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Campus for Advanced Studies[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salamat International Campus for Advanced Studies, which appears to be about the same institution. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cordless Larry. Seems to be a sub-institution of a larger one. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salamat International Campus for Advanced Studies[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salamat School System[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:51, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multan Public School and College[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep' nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.G. Boys High School No 1 Multan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Grammar School Multan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Cadet School and College[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:55, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandal College, Faisalabad[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Way School System[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government Comprehensive Boys High School, Samanabad[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:48, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government MC High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Rose School System[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Grammar School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Ursani School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:59, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace School System[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:20, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bahadar Public High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiniot Islamia School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City Foundation High School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:52, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Shaheen School System[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:10, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Garrison High School Feroze Wattwan - GGHS Feroze Wattwan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:21, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Model School Sheikhupura[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:21, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze wattwan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:52, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Syed Garden Public School & College, Battagram[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Public School and College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:55, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamia Collegiate School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:22, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar School Rawalpindi[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:22, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep. The nom didn't bother to give each of these articles individual consideration, so why should we? (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College Islamabad[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep no actual argument for deletion; WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES explicitly says not use it as an argument in AfD; where the nom says "no single source establish notability", has the nom looked for such before bringing here? (Remembering that RS for a Pakistani school may well not be in English.) I also can't see that the relevant wikiprojects (listed on the talk page) have been notified of this nomination. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:23, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barani Institute of Management Sciences[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:23, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (Bahawalpur)[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not even exists looks a diploma mill. Greenbörg (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:23, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering and Technology, Sahiwal[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not even exists looks a diploma mill. Greenbörg (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:24, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sahiwal[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not even exists looks a diploma mill. Greenbörg (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The same nominator has recently nominated a large number of Pakistani academic institutions for deletion with largely identical rationales, and no evidence of prior investigation. I've chosen this one largely at random. In this case, despite the distressing state of the article, there is ample evidence of notability. The regional government passed a law (the University of Sahiwal Act), spinning off the Sahiwal campus of Bahauddin Zakariya University into its own autonomous entity. Media coverage included remarks on the delays in this process[16] as well as coverage of the eventual inauguration,[17] found with a cursory search of English-language sources only. Claims that it is a non-existent diploma mill are not supported by available sources, and calls into question this nominator's slate of AFD entries. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandar Shahbaz University of Modern Sciences[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not even exists looks a diploma mill. Greenbörg (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:58, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Institute of Arts, Science and Technology[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not even recognized, looks a diploma mill. Greenbörg (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College Karsaz[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:01, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College Karachi[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:24, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalpindi International School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Froebel's International School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fauji Foundation College, Rawalpindi[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College Westridge[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:26, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Mobin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Week delete head of a Pakistani government institution who has been name checked in various newspapers. couldn't found source on the subject himself. a case of low-profile individual therefore WP:TOOSOON. --Saqib (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chief technology officer of a government department in no way whatsoever confers any sort of automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because the person exists — but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwar Shaheed College[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Development Authority Model School[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamia School, Gujar Khan[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headstart School (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:28, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Islamabad[edit]

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

Worth to read as Encyclopaedic?. No single source establish notability, where DAILYMAIL is not reliable. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually NSCHOOLS says that high schools are generally notable and that includes K-12 schools or any school with high school levels. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:28, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad College for Boys[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Model College[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:32, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Foundation School[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:32, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Montessori International[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:33, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster School and College[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planting a Better Future[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preparatory School Islamabad[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Jamia Public School[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Imtiaz Academy[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Public School[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:33, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Raven Tan[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Other than the todayonline article, could find no other in-depth coverage of this artist. And todayonline is a free magazine, and I could find no discussion of their editorial practices, so not sure that it even passes RS. Regardless, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any credible claim of significance or importance. A bunch of school projects and a "gallery" in his own apartment do not amount to notable accomplishments. There is no sign of a critical assessment of his work. Mduvekot (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP with no claim to notability and totally promotional in tone. --Lockley (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG. Sourcing not sufficient.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concept School of Learning[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:10, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International Public School and College[edit]

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

No single source establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 Procedural Keep nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public College Kakul Campus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So should we redirect it? Greenbörg (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep this is excessive nominations of colleges/high schools. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SCHOOLoutcomes #2. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Rai[edit]

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

Non-notable academician fails WP:NACADEMIC no sources except one from the hindivishwa.org website fails basic WP:GNG. FITINDIA 12:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Article has been recreated a few times in a few days here Prof. Anil Kumar Rai 'Ankit' and Anil Kumar Rai 'Ankit' FITINDIA 12:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - has been the dean of a school at a nationally prominent university, and the head of several departments elsewhere, but can't find sufficient WP:RS to make this meet WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online in English per WP:GNG. If the article creator added the spelling of his name in Hindi, we could search online for that. Uncle Roy (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nobability not found for this academic administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (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.

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. I've taken the liberty to disregard the !keep votes due to the sockpuppetry and given that some article quality concerns were unaddressed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Madhavji[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, it would take a hose to clean all of that MBA-level self promotion from the page. Thankfully, there seems to be no need to keep the page at all. No indication of notability from independent sources, all the information seems to be from the author themselves or from closely-related sources (e.g., university press). The speedy deletion tag was inappropriately deleted by the article creator, as well. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this page as someone who has seen the impact of this individual as an author and have read his books. They have won international book awards which is worthy of a Wikipedia page and i have updated the source accordingly. --John.sidhu (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly notable WP:AUTHOR as this person has won global awards for writing and has appropriate sources - although I see some were added after the proposed deletion. I would support KEEP as this was given the prestigious book awards by one of the leading book award granting bodies. Minor editing could still be done. Thanks Magnolia677 for pointing me in the right direction. --Mike.jahangir (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the user above is a sock of John.sidhu. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find reliable independent coverage, and the single minor book award is not enough to support notability through WP:AUTHOR. In addition to that this page reads to be very self promotional. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a neutral or properly formatted encyclopedia article, but a blatantly advertorialized pile of public relations bumf — so the blow it up and start over principle would apply regardless of whether he was notable enough in principle or not. But as the basic notability claim goes, it is far from certain that the International Book Awards (which don't even have a Wikipedia article that I can read to find out anything about them) would be notable enough to confer notability under WP:AUTHOR on its winners — that's determined by the extent to which the media do or don't cover the award as news, and is not covered off by primary sourcing the award win to the award's own self-published website about itself. And don't even get me started on the notion that writing for The Varsity or The Medium, university student newspapers both, or for Mississauga Magazine, would count as notability claims either. The referencing here is virtually entirely to primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, with virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage in media — which means that there are simply no grounds for a Wikipedia article as things stand right now. No prejudice against recreation in the future if things change, and the article can be written neutrally and sourced properly, but Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for self-promoting wannabes. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too promotional in content. Jazz4477 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A self-promotional article about a non-notable subject.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (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.

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 Wilyakali. Redirected and withdrawn by nominator clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiljakali[edit]

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

Merged to Wilyakali Batternut (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC) AfD cancelled - per Wikipedia:Merging, the article has been replaced with a redirect. Batternut (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 as sufficient consensus firmly established in the fact previous cases have shown notability is in fact granted here, reardless of GNG concerns or sourcing, which can be ultimately fixed, nac. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ CMI Central School, Anjugramam[edit]

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

A school which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Sources are subject's website and its mirrors. No Depth Google search was unfruitfull. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 01:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Proven high school as per accepted long standing procedure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no accepted long standing procedure to keep all verifiable high schools. There is a recently rejected procedure to do that. Your !vote has no weight.2001:A61:3278:2201:ADC9:2E56:49F2:58B4 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The much-cited RfD did not undermine this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2017 (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.

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. Thank you for your contribution, but please understand that Wikipedia has policies about what is appropriate and what's not. The policy documents on WP:COI and WP:BIO are good places to start. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Copeland (Photographer)[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. The current version[18] appears to contain no refs to reliable sources apart from a page on National Georgraphic about its contributors[19], which is not independent.
Gnews throws up a few hits, but only thing which comes close to a reliable source is a Gekwire piece[20] which quotes him a few times, but does not amount to substantial coverage.
The article has been created by Brooke Copeland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may have a COI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citations and notability are being corrected today. Please allow time for final draft. Thank you for your consideration. --Brooke Copeland (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is looking much better and has been listed with numerous citations. Please don't delete it. My goal is to learn more about how to make it better. I'll look for any advice you have in doing so. Thank you for your support on this. I will continue to source citations and notable sources. --Brooke Copeland (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brooke Copeland: I urge you to slow down and read WP:GNG and WP:BIO, which explain how the Wikipedia concept of notability applies to biographical articles.

You have clearly done a lot of work adding lots of citations, but I don't see any sign of anything which would help to the GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So I'm sorry to say that all your work so far doesn't help.

Most of the links posted are not to reliable sources, and most of them are merely photo credits. The only refs which come close to significant coverage in reliable sources are the National Geographic links, but they they are publishing his commissioned work rather than writing about him, so they are not independent of the subject.

What we need are reliable sources publishing articles about Copeland, not just those which publish his work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find nothing in the citations other than brief mentions or acknowledgments. A search turned up no independent WP:RS coverage. I found CC's IMDb entry (non-WP:RS), but can see no evidence of notability in it. Fails WP:BIO; and WP:TOOSOON at best. Narky Blert (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2017 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meyeti Ekhon Kothay Jabe[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are seldom notable unless the production itself has been reported on. No indication that production has been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - project does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the film isn't going to release on 3 October; it released on 10 March. A Wikipedian accidentally inverted the month and day. A considerable amount of reliable Bengali-language coverage can be found by searching for "মেয়েটি এখন কোথায় যাবে". It follows the familiar pattern of almost all Bangladeshi films: so-and-so is going to be in it, so-and-so is going to do the music, a trailer has been released, the music has been released, it has passed the censor board, it is being released today, and then total silence. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worldbruce appears correct on both counts: the release date confusion and the lack of significant coverage. Assuming Google Translate isn't wildly inaccurate, the coverage stops with release of the film. Even the appropriate film databases have no ratings or reviews post-release. Lack of significant coverage = no WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 4 June 2017 (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.

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 due to failing WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lerumo[edit]

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

COI, spam, top google hit for "European Independent charts" is "Congrats to @iamlerumo" Snow delete would best here. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also we should double-check that being signed to ADA music indicates significance, it looks like a vanity press kinda thing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my comment at my talk page, I admit that declining the speedy for being "signed" to ADA was a mistake but in the mean time sufficient claims of significance have been added to fail A7 regardless. Regards So Why 10:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would they be? Are they credible? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the article is listed here to discuss, is it not? Some of the references you removed with the comment "clean" might be considered reliable sources, at least sufficiently so to err on the side of caution when it comes to A7. Regards So Why 08:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is correct, unsourced COI spam. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is, though common, wrong to remove references from an article at AfD. Let the community judge whether or not the ref's are reliable/suitable/adequate. Generally, things like youtube are not. The interview might be. Whether or not it is sufficiently in depth and reliable enough should be discussed here. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2017 (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.

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 speedy deletion (A7, G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piush Trivedi[edit]

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

Does not meet biographical notability as a web developer. The sources do not appear to be independent. Google search finds only social media hits, and hits on Piyush Trivedi, who is someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 08:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, personally I would have speedied this autobiography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: An autobiography of an IT "devloper". Utterly mundane, merely posting his CV. No evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete. Per WP:A7 by User:Cryptic. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Høkaas[edit]

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

(1) In Norwegian, on the English wiki. (2) Low/little encyclopedic relevance. Treetear (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no references, BLPPROD would apply. No credible claim of significance. Appears to be incomplete with missing sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not English, it's Norwegian. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 08:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7/G11- unsourced autobiography with no claims of notability. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No indication of notability with no claim of significance. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:48, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences in the death of leadership between the United Kingdom and United States[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. Poorly-written article, also. --Nevé –selbert 07:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is a political / philosophical essay that would not belong in wikipedia even if it made sense. --Lockley (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be mainly about Thatcher's death, and while some of the refs talk about the difference in deaths between the UK and US, I don't think there are enough to show notability for this subject, only for maybe a short sentence or two in the article about Thatcher's death. Also, it does seem to be more like an essay than an encyclopaedic article. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 2 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Reid (ice hockey, born 1979)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 06:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 06:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 06:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he played in the Deutsche Eishockey Liga but not enough games to reach the notability bar according to WP:NHOCKEY. PK T(alk) 12:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PKT nails it on the head regarding WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 3 June 2017 (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.

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. Individual editors should feel free to make appropriate redirects as desired. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Begum[edit]

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

Shahrizal shahanshah (and their subsequently blocked sock) has been creating articles for characters of the Indian TV show Razia Sultan (TV series) (which apparently features some historical figures and a number of fictional characters), presenting them as historical. None of these article have sources to demonstrate their historicity and none seem to exist. This editor isn't responding to policy pointers and continues to recreate the articles when they're speedily deleted. Eperoton (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, described above:

Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Turkan is a notable entry. As noted above, I've added a source to the article and cleaned it up a bit. The others all appear to be minor characters at best and even if sources can be found for them, I don't believe they warrant separate articles.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep -- If her historicity can be established, merge/redirect to her husband (who if not another fiction) may be notable. If she is fiction, then plain delete. This is a comment on the first item. I rely on the nom as ti similar considerations applying to the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (except for those stricken out) as a product of a sock farm and unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/soft redirect to Razia Sultan (TV series). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o redirect all that cannot be established historicallyDlohcierekim (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all multiple attempts at communication with Shahrizal shahanshah have been ignored. Sockpuppets have been used by Shahrizal shahanshah to create and/or re-create previously deleted articles, a further sign of ignoring community concerns. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2017 (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.

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 procedural close. Duplicate article that was redirected shortly after creation. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

44th G8 summit[edit]

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

Reason Onghai1929 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russia was suspended from the G8 since 2014, the G8 becomes G7. In 2018, Canada will host 44th G7 summit, not 44th G8 summit.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Close the page currently redirects to 44th G7 summit. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (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.

Please do not appear the words 44th G8 summit under Search Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onghai1929 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samyak vartmankal[edit]

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

Claims to be a daily magazine but lacks details, including its publisher, website address, etc. Readership base of 2,000–3,000 is insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Google search for both English and Marathi titles brings no relevant results whatsoever. Samyak Vartamankal in Hindi/Marathi does not mean "people's opinion" but "right now", "at present", so article might also be a total hoax. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, which for a "largest selling daily" is not credible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. "Hac in hora sine mora//corde pulsum tangite"Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete. G7 —SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV Neunen[edit]

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

Reason:On the league page 2016–17 Hoofdklasse a link to the team RKSV Neunen was present. Since the page for the team didn't exist I created it. Only after creating the page and trying to link it to the equivalent page in the Dutch Wiki, I noticed there was a spelling mistake in the team name. It should have been nuenen instead of neunen. So I shouldn't have created this page, especially since a page for the team with the correct spelling already exists. I corrected the link(s) on the league page to the correct spelling. So this page with a misspelled team name can be deleted. Sb008 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koume-chan ga Iku!![edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find passing coverage in either English or Japanese sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable anime short series. There isn't even a Japanese Wikipedia article. ja:小梅ちゃんが行く The only thing it has going for it is that it exists in MADB [21] [22] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per fine reasoning expressed above.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 07:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 767-611[edit]

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

Non-notable whimsical project Petebutt (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is largely original research. The prototype isn't notable, and it isn't related to the Boeing 767 in any way. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if NASA has written 70 pages on it, I'll call it notable. "Pepper" @ 02:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One NASA study does not an article make!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? An aircraft is generally notable if it is verifiably — through reliable sources — a distinct "type" as demonstrated by any one or more of the following criteria: 6. The aircraft has received a distinct model number from a builder or manufacturer of other notable aircraft. "Pepper" @ 15:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research. The document linked about is by Boening, and is thus not an independent, secondary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aircraft companies produce design studies all the time mostly non-notable and forgotten about. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was never an aircraft, just a proposal. If properly sourced, some of this info could go in some article on the history of jet aircraft development. Not notable for a article on this "aircraft". MB 03:09, 2 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanta Kumari Debi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Queen of a Kingdom in Northern Bengal who has created two notable structures during her reign. More sources should be available in Bengali.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A dormitory at a college is not notable!So the figure will be precisely one.Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two English-language sources and a Bengali one to a further reading section. She had the palace Puthia Rajbari built in 1895, funded a dormitory at Rajshahi (or Rajshahye) College in 1899 or 1901 (Hemantakumari Hostel), and endowed the Department of Sanskrit there in 1904 (Hemanta Kumari Sanskrit College). So she's the sort of individual one might expect to find in an encyclopedia. The article helps counter Wikipedia's systemic bias in coverage with respect to gender, geography, and recentism. That said, the secondary sources identified so far are admittedly thin, supporting no more than a stub at this time. --Worldbruce (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to state--I'm a Bengali and can't discover any secondary source to thrust her to encycloepadic notability.And systemic bias doesn't mean we discount the policies of WP:RS,WP:GNG etc. when discussing on AFDs concerned with certain spheres and countries.Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the winged blades of wisdom/Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. considering the historical significance. It's difficult to translate this into our present-day criteria, but what she did was exeptional in its time. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (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.

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aija Izaks[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few links. There are articles in "traditional" news paper. So, they are not online. In my eyes, the article should stay, because she did a lot of work on the international stage. - [Lulanep] 18:13 19 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulanep (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actualized this article and I added a few references, too. Furthermore, on several videos can be seen, that she plays at official concerts. Moreover, she has an set card at a model agency. I used those links as references. Lulanep 11:59, 27 May 2017

Delete Unfortunately, the added references do not support notability under the general notability guideline nor under the guideline for musicians. The source listed in "References" is possibly (?) a Latvian paper and the given reference is not in a form that would allow verification. The remaining links are not helpful, either. A model profile card at an agency and the profile from a music label are both not independent. The Youtube video is not a reliable source and the remainder are not significantly about this artist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per lack of RS supporting GNG, or the cn tagged content in article.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, full marks for attempting to find some sources on this, but everything added is either not independent or not substantial. We need sources that are both in order to write a good quality neutral biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 4 June 2017 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fun House episodes[edit]

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

List of unsourced trivia that violates WP:EPISODE and WP:IINFO. See similar AFDs for lists of game show episodes below:

Delete as per nom; this is far too much detail for an encyclopedia, and the list is incomplete and unsourced. Having per-episode details for children's shows is almost never useful. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced OR and trivia. And for the same reasons supporting the othercomes of the six AfD debates above. Ajf773 (talk)
Delete Absolute OR/trivia; this is an absurdly unneeded article, and thankfully RJaguar brought the past noms along that I would have cited here. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the "unsourced" claims are coming from (a television episode is a source no less than a book, and it should be obvious that each episode is a reliable source for its own content), but delete as an indiscriminate level of unnecessary detail or trivia. In contrast to dramatic series, there is no basis for maintaining episode lists for game shows, and our past consensus on this point has always been clear. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2017 (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.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buck (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: This had a no consensus close barely a week ago after a pair of relistings. Why did you renominate it?--Izno (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: what about if the nominators would be forced to include the found material if their nomination was found to be unsubtantial / badly researched? Would had two good effects: first less (or more careful) nominations, second better referenced articles. Shaddim (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of sources put forward by the prev. commenter in the last AfD for the subject
Ref-1:--Usual news for a website devoted to a particular genre of games.Just Ref 2:-May be paid promotion.Usual news for a website devoted to a particular genre of games. Ref 3:-That's relatively good. Ref 4:--Trivial mention in a list of not-funded games.

If we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at WP:VGRS, that's pathetic.Winged Blades^Godric 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You think it's "pathetic" that we've got a well-maintained list of reliable sources where we base the notability of video games upon? That sounds like WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has far too much detail about gameplay. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. as it was already discussed, reception exist. Shaddim (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator's rationale "if we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at WP:VGRS, that's pathetic", appears to duck of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if sources which pass WP:GNG have been provided then it is acceptable to have an article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - This is much too soon to be renominating this article, especially since the previous discussion leaned very much on the "keep" side, as noted by the closer.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2017 (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.

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 Redirected to Scooter discography. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (Scooter album)[edit]

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

No third party coverage of this future work. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scooter. It's not even released yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:57, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew K. Wynia[edit]

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

Non-notable individual -- there's an evidently insufficient body of secondary sources to justify an article. He appears to be requesting deletion, as well: [23]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Came across this page at WP:BLPN. Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten and expanded the article with better sources. He has a solid h-index of 32, [24] and is the director of a major bioethics center at the University of Colorado. He has also received a chapter award from the American College of Physicians, which honors people with "a long history of excellence and peer approval in the specialty of Internal Medicine." And he's a fellow of the ACP as well. I think these facts demonstrate that Wynia meets WP:PROF criteria 1 and 3. Everymorning (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (7 publications with >100 citations each in Google scholar). Presidency of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities is also suggestive, although I'm not sure that society is big enough (1800 members) for heading it to be automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2017 (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.

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. No delete !votes address why notability is not established. As pointed out, WP:BLP1E and WP:1E do not apply if coverage exists for multiple separate events and "not tabloid" or "no claim for notability" are not valid rationales for deletion in itself. So Why 19:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maddison Hall[edit]

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

BLP of a criminal known only for committing a criminal act, and then having a sex change in prison, which no one would otherwise care about. There's definitely some sources available, but nothing indicating wider notability outside their criminal background. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of sources about this woman & I added them to the article. Not all the sources have to do with the conviction or the sex change. She has been in the news significantly over time. However, I'm not 100% comfortable dealing with criminal bios, so I'm going to just state that it seems likely this will pass GNG. Pinging Funcrunch for a better perspective. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. Megalibrarygirl you have a right to vote if you feel GNG is met. Flat Out (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Flat Out. I will. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to meet GNG. Not sure what "which no one would otherwise care about" refers to in Timothyjosephwood's comment; many people have strong feelings (positive and negative) about trans prisoners getting access to gender-related surgery. I'm concerned that Megalibrarygirl pinging me specifically might appear to be canvassing however, so I'm reluctant to cast a Keep !vote. Funcrunch (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Funcrunch! I just wanted another set of eyes who was familiar with these issues. I think it may have been better to post on WP:LGBT, now that I think about it, but I work with you a lot, so I thought of you. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Thanks, I was going to suggest LGBT Studies and/or Women in Red. Funcrunch (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funcrunch would you consider voting now that additional sources have been added? Flat Out (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flat Out: Sourcing wasn't the issue for me; as I said, my concern was the appearance of canvassing. Funcrunch (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article needs improvement, details of the horrific murder committed by Noel Crompton belong in a separate, substantial section. Keep on the basis of coverage by national media over many years and a series of issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing how this passes WP:1E: a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. From what I can tell, the subject murdered someone and made the news, and then made the news as a person who murdered someone who had a sex change... who... would otherwise just be a person who had a sex change and of no other particular note. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood, the reasons why a person is of interest to the general public aren't for us to evaluate. We only need to check and see if the sources are there for passing GNG or ANYBIO, not the "reasons" they were written about. For example, Kim Kardashian appears to be famous for no reason I can understand, but she's clearly notable. Also, this isn't a single event, as you showed above: 1) the murder, 2) the sex change and I'll add 3) the various lawsuits, 4) parole. All coverage of different topics surrounding this woman's life. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood I think if you take another look you will see they meet the standard, not because of the murder, but because of the coverage relating to transitioning in prison, the issues of trans females being places in male prisons, delayed parole due to gender identity issues, the state paying for gender reassignment, parliamentary debate etc. Flat Out (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete there's no claim for notability. None of the press coverage justifies notability. This falls under WP:BLP, and the coverage is simply the regular proceedings of the legal system. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with coverage of convictions, issues facing the subject as a trans person in a male prison, suing Corrections dept. They may be trashy reasons for coverage but its there nonetheless. Ticks the box for significant coverage, reliable and independent sources. I don't agree that WP:1E applies since the media was as much about trans issues and prisoners, allocation of funds to prisoners to support their transition etc. Also the media coverage has endured right up to 2016. Flat Out (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - additional sources supplied. Flat Out (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:1E doesn't apply here. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Power~enwiki I'm curious as to how you think GNG is not met now additional sources have been added? Flat Out (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not claiming that GNG isn't met. I'm claiming that BLP suggests the article should be deleted; there's no case for meeting WP:PERP here. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meeting GNG is enough WP:SIGCOV. Flat Out (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe you're correct. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Failing specific rules, such as WP:PERP can delete articles that otherwise meet GNG for low-profile individuals. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you agree that WP:1E doesn't apply, and you focus on the broader coverage (WP:BASIC) not just the initial conviction, you might consider that WP:PERP is the wrong standard to apply in this case. Flat Out (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2017 (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.

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. I will remove the copyvio from the article after closure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Gadam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues of notability Itspoojkins (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability requirements. He's widely covered in West African media (see links on the article, and e.g. [25][26][27]). Has won at Ghana Music Awards which may meet WP:BAND #8 depending on your interpretation. Nomination is feeble (see WP:AADD): it doesn't properly set out grounds for deletion or any evidence of WP:BEFORE or any reason for dismissing the existing references on the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Vio? looks to be mostly from [28] but needs to be verified. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From his releases, concerts and awards the artist is notable. The wording of the article could be improved upon though. But that is not a reason for deletion. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article needs improvement not deletion. this artist is notable and is one the biggest artists in Ghana. I see so many trusted sources about him on the internet. Like his interviews with Voice of America and BBC focus on Africa.Shahadusadik (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2020 (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.

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. Sandstein 16:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll.in[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found one reliable source which doesn't have in depth coverage. The award "RedInk journalism" doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Currently this Indian website is failing WP:WEBCRIT as it is not mentioned in other Indian news sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is passing coverage of this firm's funding, a start-up award, and their role in Quartz's service in India (Mint, 2014 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), but I am not seeing the independent discussion of the firm itself needed for WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:WEB or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scroll.in is a top-1,000 site in India, and a top-10,000 site in the world. Scroll.in journalist Malini Subramaniam recently won the Committee to Protect Journalists' 2016 Press Freedom Award for her Scroll.in coverage of the Maoist insurgency in India's Red Corridor. There are plenty of other sources discussing Scroll.in that could be used to expand the article:
- http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/wezx5YVSz0kIE6EOxU5ZhL/The-big-digital-paywall-question.html (Oct. 2016)
- https://www.cjr.org/special_report/india_digital_revolution_startups_scoopwhoop_wire_times.php (Columbia Journalism Review, Fall/Winter 2016, calling Scroll "the most successful of India’s independent media websites)
- http://www.forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/the-new-digital-newsroom/44139/1 (Forbes India, Aug. 2016, calling Scroll "India’s leading digital news venture")
- http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/f3GAHV6mjNII78o1IohSrN/Digital-news-sites-turn-hyperlocal-on-Facebook-live-to-cover.html (Mar 2017)
- http://www.dhakatribune.com/magazine/arts-letters/2016/11/11/journalists-under-the-spotlight/ (Nov. 2016)
- http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/arnab-goswami-quits-here-are-the-other-popular-journalists-who-left-their-company-to-start-new-ventures/435885/ (Nov. 2016)
- Note too that articles and interviews published in Scroll are regularly linked, mentioned or quoted in national and international media. Examples (all from the past month):
- Honourable mentions in scholarly books: [29][30] Taken together, that means it's a notable news website. The fact the the RedInk journalism award, which the site won in 2015, doesn't have an article in Wikipedia probably says more about Wikipedia than it does about the award: it's a well-known national award, the only one of its kind in India, and its results are reported in Indian national dailies [31][32]. --Andreas JN 466 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Jayen466 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more concise summary of my keep vote above – Scroll.in meets WP:WEBCRIT criterion 2 because it has won two well-known and independent awards, both reported in national Indian newspapers:
1. RedInk award. Sources: [33][34][35]
2. The CPJ International Press Freedom Award. Sources: [36][37][38] --Andreas JN 466 19:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:WEB, and sourcing is clearly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Of the awards listed above, one is not notable, and the other was not won by the organization, and even if it was, not sure it alone would indicate notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 3 June 2017 (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.

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 Jukun people (West Africa). Sourced content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rendere[edit]

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

A few issue with this article. Quite a lengthy article about a tribe, which is a fork of Jukun people (West Africa). In the main article, this tribe is only mentioned in passing. The fork article does not deliver any external references to substantiate any claims. Furthermore, the author of the WP article appears to quote his own work as only source, invalidating that source. The entire article is effectively WP:OR. May also raise copyright concerns. I have not really found any external sources about the Rendere. For now, I'd propose deletion or redirect and merge with the main article of the Jukun - until better sources are found. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know this tribe, but from what is online it is a tribe of a more covered Jukun people. From my understanding on what is encyclopedic, being a tribe falls in that category but the extreme lack of verifiable sources makes me want to suggest a redirect to Jukun people. Although, the inclusionist part of me wants to blank the lengthy unsourced overview section and keep the article. Darreg (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the language they speak is Rindre and that doesn't appear related to that of the Jukun [39] [40]. If Rindre is an alternative spelling of the name of the people, then there are quite a few sources out there. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided didn't show anything at my end. Probably needed some sort of authentication before granting me access. Jukun is like a race, similar to when people segregate the cultural diversities of Nigeria into Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa, even though there are still hundreds of ethnic groups that will tell you they aren't Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa. The languages of each tribe is independent of each-other, and often times only the major ones are documented. Did the link you provide list all the tribes and languages of Jukun and there wasn't Rindre language?

If there are references for Rindre, and we can establish that it is spoken by Rendere tribe in central Nigeria then this article can be kept in my opinion. Darreg (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links were just the glottolog entries for the two language varieties. It's open access, and you should be able to see the entries in the phylogenetic tree. There's not much info beyond that. But the parent entry for Rindre is Nungu [41], corresponding to our Nungu language. Glottolog says that it's also known as Rendre, Rindiri or Rindre (these are displayed if you click on "Alternative names" in the upper-right corner). – Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if there are references that can be added, agree to keep. However, the article will need a rewrite based on those sources. I'm not overly happy with the current self-referenced text. We don't have access to that text and I have a suspicion that this is a copy/paste job of an essay or other published work. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now Uanfala. I agree with you Jake, but I doubt we can find references before this AFD is closed. What will be done if that is the case, delete? Darreg (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can decide to redirect Rendere to the higher level article about the Jukun people. Whatever additional info about the Rendere that has been identified can then be added in that article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:54, 31 May 2017 (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.

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. While Newimpartial is apparently referring to WP:NAUTHOR, Aoziwe's 'week keep' rationale is probably a stronger rationale that matches the consensus I view in this Afd, especially with the nominator not opposing any of the keep rationales. If anyone, including the nominator, wishes more clarification, please chat me up on my talk page. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McLaren[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. suspiciously created by a single purpose editor of the same name as article. No awards , no notable publications LibStar (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My initial search seems to indicate a non trivial amount of and rather varied references to this subject, even though not of the outstanding type. There does appear to be sufficient to support a more in depth article and a better referenced one. Agree that there are no awards, etc., that I can see at the moment, but the subject just needs to pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP, not any specific SNG. At the moment I am going with WP:NEXIST. So what if it was originally created by an SPA as an autobio. If it passes GNG, is verifialbe, and is NPOV, then it can stay. Aoziwe (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any poet who manages to get actual third-party reviews meets WP:BLP notability as far as I'm concerned. It's a tough row to hoe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2017 (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.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Owens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, coach and manager. Currently a hitting coach in the Can-Am League. Article previously deleted in 2011 and then recreated in 2015 without any new developments that would make him more notable. Oddly the same editor who nominated him for deletion the first time later recreated the article? Spanneraol (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:NBASEBALL, but in my mind the sources in the article are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also, he is a manager in the Atlantic League, not a hitting coach in the Can-Am League as nominator indicates. Still doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL though, so it's a rather moot point and it comes down to GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was previously a manager... but currently (2017 season) is hitting coach for the New Jersey Jackals. -Spanneraol (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources in the article are either general interest news stories, a couple of passing mentions, and routine coverage. Not enough to meet GNG, and WP:NBASEBALL is for doubtful cases like this. So because he fails NBASEBALL and GNG isn't strong enough Delete Prevan (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL, and the sourcing is not of the in-depth type needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage insufficient for GNG. does not meet NBASEBALLDlohcierekim (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2017 (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.