Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of the Holy Spirit CDES


 * 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.  Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

College of the Holy Spirit CDES

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are several reasons why I think this page should be deleted.
 * It looks like a blatant advertisement, and it was certainly written by a user closely connected to the subject (see article talk page for evidence).
 * I can't find any secondary source that discuss this subject, so I can't establish its WP:Notability.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - zero coverage in secondary sources Spiderone  23:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article links to unesco.vg. I had a rather curious experience regarding that site and User:Taesulkim, author of this article, described at Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. I rather doubt the .vg mirror is a reliable source; UNESCO's website is at unesco.org, and WHED is at whed.net. WHED does not have an entry for this college. Carleton University's website does not mention "Daniel Odin", the President of CDES with whom Carleton University supposedly cooperates. If claims in the article turn out to be blatantly false, it's hard to see this as a valid article, as opposed to spam or even a scam. Huon (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do NOT DeleteOnce again Huon and Vanjagenije united to discredit my editions?
 * Wikipedia does not allow wp:original research. Unless you have some reliable source to prove that the domain CDES or his president, we shouldn't delete this article. '''Taesulkim (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "to prove that the domain CDES or his president". You are right in noting that Wikipedia does not allow original research. Thus, the burden of evidence rests on the editor who wants to include content. At least two of the sources given in the article do not say what they are cited for, and at least one claim in the article is just plain wrong. How about addressing that? Huon (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Article has been updated, and reliable sources published, also link within wiki were also placed. Taesulkim (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SPAM South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - what a complete unmitigated mess. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.