Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 20

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. Sandstein 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beth Goncarova

Sarah Beth Goncarova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

GNG fail.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, (a lot of the following is derived from
  WP:GNG but others can argue they are the sort of thing that any artist will have over a career of 10+ years and does not make her wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The article is poorly sourced but this artist was playing for the Alexandria Symphony Orchestra at the age of nine. This was notable enough for the
  Washington Post so there is enough for ambitious editors to improve the article so her notability is more obvious.--23mason (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2019 (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 under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJet Flight Support

IJet Flight Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like an advert; written by potential COI editor with company name in username (Carol iJET); has no sources; no obvious sign of notability from a quick web search. Lopifalko (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Essentially the same reasons as in the nomination. Although the name appears in a few news sources, it mainly seems to be PR opportunities where an executive is commenting on an unrelated story, so does not meet
  WP:ORGCRIT Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per {{
  db-spam}}, or speedy draftify. Article as is, is just spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment My mistake, I should have sent it to or CSD G11 because it is "exclusively promotional", rather than AfD. I am used to doing that when reviewing draft articles but not when reviewing articles in article space. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as obvious paid and unsourced spam. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete CSD#A7 (corp) and CSG#G11 (advertising). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (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.

Leirion Gaylor Baird

Leirion Gaylor Baird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a major and city councilwoman of Lincoln, Nebraska. Have not been elected in a high level political position. Fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I understand (and appreciate) the linking to
  talk) 23:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Changing my vote to keep per Bearcat below and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians. This article may lend to notability, but I can't get to the with or without adblock (real mess of a website) but it is available on Proquest. https://journalstar.com/lifestyles/thoughts-of-darfur-s-women-motivate-triathlete/article_ccd1a8d2-37a5-59a0-a2c8-55d2a075dc59.html originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article does need some improvement, but mayors of cities the size of Lincoln NE most certainly are acceptable article topics. Mayors of major cities do not have to show as much nationalized coverage as mayors of small towns do — nationalized coverage certainly still wouldn't hurt, but it's not a base condition that big city mayors always have to pass to be considered notable in the first place: that added hurdle applies to small town mayors, but not to mayors of large and significant cities. And while it's true that campaign coverage does not help to establish the permanent notability of an as yet unelected mayoral candidate in and of itself, a person who has jumped the fence from "candidate" to "officeholder" can use the campaign coverage to help expand the article with. And since she was apparently just sworn in as mayor yesterday, it's clear that there will be additional coverage in the future to further improve the article with too. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even a discussion. This is the page for the incumbent Mayor of a state capital with nearly 300,000 residents. I have seen pages for mayors of towns with 10,000 residents that went unchallenged. If this discussion had been raised when she was still a candidate, I might have understood. However, it appears to have been raised instead not only after she was elected, but after she took office. It is so outlandish to me that this page would even be nominated for deletion that I feel tempted to say that it was done in bad faith. Avidohioan (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (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 : the original was a copyright violation of older texts like this one from 2009: the translation of a copyright violation is also a copyright violation (though one that isn't to blame on the unwitting translator) and must be deleted.

Ulrich Tadday

Ulrich Tadday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any real notability for just another teacher. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Have no time to look closer right now, but looks an author of our sources, especially for
  Martinů. Can certainly be polished, but again: no time now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I still have no time, but found a book by him reviewed in a leading paper [8], - he's not "another teacher", and I found that on the first page of a google search. I'd hope for looking that little into a bio before nominating for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article needs improvement, but I'm leaning towards keep. He is a full professor at a well-regarded university, so there is a case for WP:PROF C5 (Germany doesn't have "distinguished professorships" or named chairs). --Tataral (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our man has 8 entries in the Authority control template which should be enough to demonstrate his notability. Besides there are links to several articles in the encyclopedia and 4 references to some of his publications. I know it doesn't make up for the lack of references but could'nt find a single one. LouisAlain (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Baburam dahal

Baburam dahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NO evidence of notability, and reads a bit promotional. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy delete CSD#A7 (person). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 20 May 2019 (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. G11. T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a slut novel

Being a slut novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Soon-to-be self-published debut novel without actual notability yet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - promotional and yet to be published novel. Fails GNG and
  talk) 10:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep It should not be deleted. It is a nice article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7.30.199.223 (talk • contribs)

Deletion or keeping should be based on notability of the subject, not "niceness" of the article. --ilmaisin (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely non-notable self-published book. The article provide no reliable sources, and I can find no others. Really, this could almost be a valid Speedy Deletion nomination due to the obvious promotional tone of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G11. Unreleased and only self-published or user-generated sources, clear promotional tone. Nanophosis (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G11. This is wildly promotional and should be deleted as soon as possible. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note the article appears to have been created by the book's author. This is definitely a speedy delete situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  weasel words and provides no proof of notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, does not meet
  promotional purposes. ps. an admin might like to close this early. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as completely failing to reach
  the notability threshold for books. Given the tone currently used in the article, I wouldn't object to a speedy deletion on spam grounds. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G11.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy as
  G11 per the above. I've also tagged the article. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:22, 27 May 2019 (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. Then two "merge"s do not agree about where to. Sandstein 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trope (religion)

Trope (religion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Largely a content fork of Cantillation and stub-level fork of Trope (music). In some ways also functions as a fork of Trope (disambiguation). Ibadibam (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge-I came across this some month back and found it confusing. It should all be part of Trope (music), as even that page is largely about religious music anyway. The part about the Unity of the Brethren should be moved to Unity of the Brethren--I could add that one subdivision for American Moravians during the communal living era was the "choir"--we do not have a "choir (religion)" article just because they borrowed a musical term for polity-related purposes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Cantillation also be merged to Trope (music)? The two seem like quite distinct concepts. Most of the content in the article under discussion relates to Jewish cantillation. Ibadibam (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "no." Long answer: To the best of my knowledge, cantillation is an example of (or at least involves) one of the older forms of trope in music. Trope (music) needs a discussion of cantillation more than cantillation needs a discussion of trope. If there is any novel content in trope (religion) that also needs to be copied over to cantillation, please do that. I did not check for this possibility. But at the same time, Trope (music) also needs a summary of the material. If for some reason it is decided that trope (religion) should be merged to cantillation, someone should still determine that the summary of cantillation on trope (music) is adequate.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only reference here is OED, but OED does not mention trope in a religious or musical setting, only as "a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression" - covered in the
  WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with
  talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This article is mainly a much shorter substitute for Cantillation (the Jewish use of "trope"). The main Christian use of "trope" is already covered in Trope (music), and I don't understand what the Moravian Church use of "trope" is supposed to mean, but it can be covered in some other appropriate article. Since we already have a disambiguation page at Trope, this article covering three topics inadequately, two of which already have better articles, is not needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Content fork, would be redundant to the dab, as discussed above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:37, 21 May 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2.2.1

2.2.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2.0.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3.2.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3.2.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4.0.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4.0.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4.2.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4.3.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5.0.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5.1.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6.0.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7.1.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7.1.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Okay, that's fair. I'll second deletion of these. I only created some of these because a few already existed like this. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: wouldn't
  talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Geolodus no. MfD is explicitly not for content in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Understood. There's no need to ping me, as I typically watch these pages after voting on them. -

talk) 05:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep If it can refer to thousands of things that aren't just model versions then it seems like we'd need multiple disambiguation articles offering finer tuned versions. In checking 4.3.1 and 2.2.1 the targets identified both make sense to me. This to me is closer in philosophy to that of a redirect "dabs are cheap" so easy to keep but no huge loss if the occasional one is deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  author request --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @DannyS712: Yes, I am agreeing with the deletion of these pages. However, I did not create all of them, only some of them. Just doing one AfD on all of them would likely be easier than picking individual ones to speedy delete and waiting for AfD on the rest, so I'm just leaving them all as AfD. That way, this discussion can continue in the event that people decide for whatever reason that they don't want to delete these pages. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. By analogy, if you're looking for information about The Godfather Part II, you don't go to the Part II page (and, in fact, you won't find anything about The Godfather Part II there). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note - I've deleted those created by InternetProtocol127001 as
  WP:G7, if there is a strong push towards recreation I'm happy to refund. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Ignore me, I didn't see Barkeep's keep statement - I will let the AFD proceed as usual. NODEADLINE and all that. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
•  Note: since the nominator has been blocked as a sock of a banned user, I have stricken their statement. Given that @Primefac has already deleted the pages created by InternetProtocol127001 , I suggest that this be speedy closed without prejudice to renomination of the remaining pages. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There has been enough valid discussion (including by the creator) that the AFD should run its course. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PTM and Metropolitan90. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Weak Delete Nom suggests that the x.x.x titles could refer to "thousands of other things", yet these articles run no risk of confusion, as most articles that would link to any version number would instead link to the actual software. These should be the most searched version numbers if they exist on the disambigution page, and if any other version number exists and is relevant, than it could be included on the same page. By wmflabs, the individual version numbers are somewhat frequently searched without a product specification. These pages would serve their purpose to help in these instances.
  talk) 02:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • While I don't believe in the popular argument to delete (too vague and such), it is still a partial title match. I really want these redirects to remain in use, but sadly that isn't how the rules are. I'm going back and forth between my heart and my mind. I'm on the verge of flipping back to keep once one more piece of evidence is given; this is an extremely weak delete.
    talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Who would need this disambiguation? Fails
  talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  Syndicater and Barkeep49 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Too vague, It can refer to thousands of different things. Why no also include Windows version too (just an analogy). So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not add any of the thousand different things? It is a disambiguation page after all, a page in which the references can be listed and anybody can search through to find what they are looking for. What else could the user be trying to find with
    talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete It's unlikely that these are just known by their numbers or that anyone would be looking for "which operating system had versions 2.0.1 and 3.2.2". Redirects such as 7.0.2 should also be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone typing these in should expect hundreds of related topics, not a page making the implicit claim that these numbers refer to two types of OS only. And no one is going to fill in and curate these hundreds, and for many many other version numbers to boot. Apart from that, these are plain unlikely search terms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Talk: Contribs) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanzaville, USA

Bonanzaville, USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not finding anything other than local coverage of upcoming events and an act of vandalism, so

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of the coverage just calls it "Bonanzaville", so searching on "Bonanzaville, USA" gives misleadingly few results. I'm not sure it rises to the level of notability in Wikipedia terms, but the coverage isn't as sparse as it appears at first glance. ‑ 
  Iridescent 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep on the strength of this international coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Local-history museums tend to get a surprising amount of coverage in print and other not-easily-found-with-Google sources, and they're quite often notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was correct: there's a significant amount of coverage in print resources, as you'll see if you search WorldCat for bonanzaville. Many of the top resources are irrelevant, being publications by Bonanzaville (e.g. a cookbook and some children's texts), and OCLC 807200662 is a printout of Wikipedia articles, but OCLC 124035705 (from a significant publisher in American local history) has enough coverage of Bonanzaville that it appears in the WorldCat record. According to this archival record from NDSU, the Fargo-Moorhead Historic Buildings Survey produced significant documentation on at least one of the buildings on site (this will be a reliable sources with extensive information on the building), and I'd be quite surprised if such a survey missed all the other buildings here. OCLC 38873053 discusses using Bonanzaville's resources in social studies classes; it was written by college students, but as the project was overseen by education faculty and published by their department of education, I'd consider it a reliable source for this topic. And finally, there are two separate graduate theses focusing on Bonanzaville in particular. OCLC 127449324 is a case study of communication at this museum, and OCLC 23350797 focuses on the process of creating and moving the museum. (Its OCLC record doesn't give much metadata; I know it's a thesis after consulting its record in the NDSU library catalogue.) Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The current sources are RS. I would congratulate the Cass County Hist Soc for creating this 12-acre museum. Museums tend to be tourist attractions and notable as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2019 (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 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bahadur Dewan

Lal Bahadur Dewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I put this up as a PROD, which was contested by the original author. The author has added more information, but I don't think it passes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:COI-ridden article with no real basis for notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Hulse

George Hulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No RS, unverifiable and even if a RS can be found, he played such small roles in only 4 films that he was an uncredited extra. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and does not meet
  WP:ENT. No significant secondary RS coverage. No notability established. • HM Wilburt (talk
  ) 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. No coverage, bit part actor. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravina Project Toronto

Ravina Project Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be some non notable local project. Has a good ref in the The Globe and the Mail article but there does not seem to be any ongoing coverage to make this pass our

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - marginal notability - while receiving some coverage by national newspapers, like the Star and Globe & Mail, it is a one-house private project, not a significant movement - but their record-keeping and published results to show the actual effect of alternative energy sources is innovative and significant, therefore notable - Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st ref from Star has provided exactly one sentence mentioning the project, which does not seem like much to me. Same goes with the CBC article below. The 2nd ref from The Star is an example of why this has nothing more than local notability - the project is a couple's personal campaign to combat climate change, and it gets news value only because of the uniqueness associated with two old people working on a project nobody usually expects from their ilk. I am not considering Torontoist (which incidentally also has only a single sentence), as I don't consider blogs as reliable references. Jupitus Smart 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravina Project Toronto - Response to Proposal to Delete

Hi there, I am not highly proficient with Wiki editing, but I disagree that the project is not notable. Please note a "local" issue is not considered not-notable, based on the Wiki criteria. And to the extent it is "local" - Toronto is a big and important city - many local Toronto places/events/people get Wiki pages.

It has been covered by the CBC, Toronto Star, & Globe and Mail over many years, some references of which are on the page. The page links to articles from 2007, 2008, 2016 & 2017. There are other articles besides (see below) - but my availability to edit is sporadic and limited. Please feel free to edit the page to add the CBC interview below. You mention only one Globe & Mail article, but what about the two Toronto Star articles referenced, or the Toronto Observer piece? I attend climate conferences regularly in Toronto and heard about the project through those conferences - including on the Toronto Environmental Alliance website. I have never met the people behind the project. If someone hears about the Ravina Project (like I did) they should be able to find out more on Wikipedia. That's why I added it. I hope you'd consider improving the page rather than just tagging for deletion.

One last point - it's not easy to get solar panels in Toronto, even in 2019. I know it is in the USA. I have been trying for years and finally reached out to these folks on Twitter to find out how they did it. But they got panels so long ago their contact was unable to help me. I'm not sure if they were the first residence in Toronto to install solar panels, but they might have been. They remain one of the few, even after all these years. Give the page time.

Here's the list of reasons for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.

And more about notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary

I think of all the criteria, notability is the most subjective. If major newspapers covered the project over more than 10 yeas, I'd argue that's dispositive.

There's a reference to a CBC interview here:

https://www.franciscanvoicecanada.com/blog/the-ravina-project

And this might be the interview:

https://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/episode/2012/02/

And another article here:

https://torontoist.com/2012/02/meet-a-toronto-danforth-candidate-craig-scott/

SabaBPC (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE -
  WP:GNG The google search (all google, not merely news) generates less than 20 results, the top-ranked of which are of the 'things to do near this place' variety. One of the Star articles merely mentions that they attended a local conference, and the Observer is a local college paper (and FWIW, I don't believe the writer actually interviewed the subjects). The straight-up articles (Globe, Star) are basically the same interview and then there is a second Star article (with a very local flavour — headline begins 'Riverdale couple...') that is pretty much a rewrite of the first Star article. I think that what they're doing is kind of interesting but the coverage is mostly about its novelty and not its significance. I might feel differently if I saw references to this data being utilized. ogenstein (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I made a small edit to address this concern. The Frasers spoke at the OGRA conference last year, reporting (among other things) that a flat orientation of their panels improved energy generation in the winter, and references to their project in a book.

I did not have time to include all of the above references. Or this one: https://www.gn21.ca/can-older-homes-be-cozy-and-fossil-free. Another speaking event.

Again - Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where you can go to find out what something is. People in Toronto are hearing about the Ravina Project. They should be able to come here to answer the question "What's the Ravina Project?"

It doesn't have to be "notable" in the way Napoleon Bonaparte is notable. Just notable enough that people might hear about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ravina_Project_Toronto

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. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard, Indiana

Hubbard, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Coordinates point to an intersection with nothing nearby, no evidence this is a real community, no sources found about this "place". Listing in a database of place names does not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GEOLAND. Yet another ridiculous nomination of places in Indiana for seemingly no valid reason. Smartyllama (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Presumed notability" means that substantive sources are expected to be available, but none are to be found here so notability is not actually established. Do you have any evidence this is actually a "populated place" besides a context-free database entry? GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". Where are the substantive sources still required under "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."? Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a "populated, legally recognized place", per
  WP:GEOLAND
  :
  • The US Department of the Interior identifies Hubbard as a populated place.
  • The State of Indiana identifies Hubbard on a list of municipalities.
  • Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Hubbard. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  WP:2S - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:GEOLAND states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". The notability of these places does not need to be established; a consensus of editors have agreed that if these are legally recognized populated places, they are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Hubbard has been listed on US government records as a populated place for the past 40 years, and appears on countless maps. This would be similar to a one-term do-nothing US senator from the 1920s, where a Wikipedia editor may only find one reliable source to support this person's role as a senator. Their Wikipedia biography might be just one line long, but editors have agreed that all US senators (like all populated, legally recognized places) are notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• DELETE - 'Presumed' but not guaranteed. It is not an exemption from notability requirements.
  WP:COMMONSENSE. How does this perfunctory type of page inform readers? That there is a name on a map, but nobody knows or cares what it is? Have a county page that lists the ghost corners and hamlets. Otherwise a reader could endlessly go through the infinite list of 'place names' of Indiana but never actually find anything out about any of them. ogenstein (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Where does it say that? Saying these things doesn't make them true. Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Buckle up, it's gonna be a long ride.

It's right there in the text. From

WP:NGEO

:

A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them.

Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

And from

WP:COMMONSENSE

Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

Please also see this reference as well, which deals specifically with small place articles:

WP:CL-RULE

.

At this point, does this article have any encyclopedic content? It does not. It is merely a database entry from the USGS wrapped in a template. So wikipedia does no service to readers with this page and no reader is better informed. If you were interested in studying the geographical history of St. Joseph's County, this page (which you can't really call an article) actually makes it a worse experience because you would have to go through 38 place names in the county, of which maybe four have more than a sentence. Indiana probably has on the order of 2000 'populated places', and that's one state, in one country. Should someone develop a bot to create all these ghost pages? All of the information on the Hubbard page is already on the Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana page.

Consider as well, the pages for Terre Coupee and Hamilton. These are apparently the same place, which was originally named Terre Coupee and then renamed to Hamilton. So it is actually misleading to say that Terre Coupee 'is' a place. It 'was' a place between 1828 and 1837. Having these pages creates confusion.

Please also see this from

WP:ARTICLE

:

A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:

• identifies a notable topic,
• summarizes that topic comprehensively,
• is written in an encyclopedic style of language,
• has been well copyedited,
• contains references to reliable sources, and
• contains wikilinks to and is linked to by other articles or article sections about related topics.

As I see it, this page meets the first requirement but none of the others.

Please also see this from

WP:MISTAKES

:

Articles which are too short to have encyclopedic value. Articles must establish the context and notability of the subject. If an article does not contain enough content to keep it from being classified as a mere stub, then it may qualify for speedy deletion.

Please also see this from

WP:STUB

:

A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.

And then this:

If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.

And finally, what does

WP:NOTABILITY

have to tell us:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

And if we look at it from the other perspective, what does

WP:GEOLAND

say? Only this: "typically presumed to be notable". And note that NGEO encompasses GEOLAND and addresses this directly.

That does not exempt these pages from every other guideline in wikipedia. I think it means that a subject is eligible for a page despite lacking significance relative to others. Does it exempt editors from having to think or exercise judgement? I don't think any guideline does that. I feel it is being used as a silver bullet.

Afterword: I should add that I did spend hours trying to find something about this 'place' referred to as Hubbard. I did find some interesting pages that cover a range of years and provide the names of many people and places but no place called Hubbard, so even people who knew the area and were interested in preserving its history had nothing to say. Thanks for hearing me out.

• St. Joseph County Map 1945
• History of Olive Township, St. Joseph County
• New Carlisle: Story of Our Town

ogenstein (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and unincorporated communities are considered notable. I added a citation to the article: Hubbard Topo Map in St. Joseph IN-thank youRFD (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have expanded the article to show that Hubbard was a station on the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. The settlement was probably named for the Hubbard's of the Haven Hubbard Home, early setters in Olive Township who owned a large tract of land to the northwest. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify which page this station reference is on? From what I can see on the CSS timetable, there were stops at New Carlisle and Olive (to the west) and Warren (to the east). I don't see any stops between. Hopefully I didn't miss something obvious. Nice find.

And as regards your comments on the Hubbards of the area, I agree that there was a prominent family in the township but as you point out, known connections are distant from the designated coordinates and if their buildings were noteworthy and easily found then surely a named community would be as well. I did searches for names (initially R Hubbard, and then Ransom Hubbard, based upon seeing the name in a result in a google books clipping from 'A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana', and then Jonathan Hubbard who was apparently the first to settle in the area and lived in Terre Coupee around when it became Hamilton) but came up dry.

I should add that this is making for an odd way to spend Victoria Day but thinking about the Hubbards of the township got me thinking some more and I went back to google books to look at the snippet of the history book. There was a tantalizing fragment of text saying, "The existence of this old town is so completely obliterated that Judge Hubbard, who was born on Terre Coupee prairie, doubts whether any one on the prairie can point out its site." I couldn't help but wonder if there was a connection. Well, there wasn't, but it turns out that the book is in the public domain, having been written in 1908 and so I was able to see that the reference was for a different place. I think it could be a good resource for many of these northern Indiana stubs, and within the text, it suggests that there may be similar books about nearby counties and townships as well. That said, while it discusses three generations of Hubbards, it does not mention a location with such a name, so I'm still a 'delete'. For those interested, here is the link I found:

A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana

ogenstein (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mothman: Page 15. Enjoy your holiday! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Got it. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  ☎) 03:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment But it fails
  WP:NGEO, which is a higher requirement, plus numerous other requirements as well. It's not likely to ever pass them. ogenstein (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, or at least merge per
  WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 14:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per
  WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hartmann

Greg Hartmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by an SPA account. Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - served County Commissioner and County Campaigner for other politician and not high level elected political position - Fails
  talk) 10:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. County commissioner is not a role that automatically passes
  primary source that does not constitute support for notability at all, which isn't even close to the quality or depth or range of referencing he would have to show. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Does not appear to meet
  WP:GNG or any other specific notability guideline. As indicated above, the sources are either primary or routing coverage about the election. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 26 May 2019 (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 Phoronix Test Suite. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phoronix

Phoronix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

I don't think this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for web site notability. The article is pretty much completely based on Phoronix itself as a source and can't find a way to fix it. The site, particularly the benchmarks, have been cited by mainstream media but I don't find anything substantial written about the site itself. I tried this Google search to find stuff about Phoronix that is not in Phoronix itself and that is not about the test suite (which has a separate article). I didn't see anything that would be of interest what it comes to writing a Wikipedia article. There is also not much of organization behind the site and it seems to be more or less an one-man show. ilmaisin (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  overlap between the two articles. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with Phoronix Test Suite. Ypatch (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2019 (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.