hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
No Mafia: I don't believe it's technically eligible for G4 as the prose has changed, but it's still the same subject with the same notability problems.  – brad v 18:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Australia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only non-local coverage seems to be a bare mention in the SMH?  Valereee ( talk ) 19:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sourcing found in regular Gsearch, limiting it to . au websites [10] , hardly anything else turns up.  One review from the Perth area.  Delete, and nothing has changed since the last AfD less then a month ago.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No SIGCOV.  〜 Festucalex • talk 21:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per Valeree, only passing mention in SMH.  Fails WP:AUD despite being a rewritten article.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Coverage is not sufficient for NCORP.  And come on, keep the notability arguments out of mainspace; passages like After moving publications to the nation-wide newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald, he reviewed the venue again in 2022; re-evaluating the restaurant to a score of 15.5/20 in a ~970 word review are transparently non-encyclopedic.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible Merge to Emma_Ferguson_and_Dan_Morris#No_Mafia Gjs238 ( talk ) 02:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom -- Devoke water 12:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing has moved on from consensus that sourcing fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability at the recent AfD HighKing ++ 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt to prevent further recreation.  SportingFlyer T · C 14:42, 25 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Transcendental perspectivism: I see essentially no attestation to third-party independent notice .  jps ( talk ) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Religion ,  and Psychology .  jps ( talk ) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No secondary sources in the article and practically nothing turns up on Google Scholar (a few papers use the same phrase but in a completely unrelated sense).  No indication that this is an idea which has made any significant impact on scholarship, and there are no independent sources with which we could write an encyclopedia article about this topic.  WJ94 ( talk ) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No assertion of notabillity.  NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 03:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (until further notice).  It does seem there is a COI-issue, as noted at the talk page of the article.  But that is not reason to delete it.  Also, lack of citations in the article, doesnt translate to lack of citations in general.  There is some literature on "Transcendental perspectivism" [33] .  I am open to discussion though.  Cinadon 36 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've looked through the GScholar results myself and most of what comes up is either passing mentions, authored by Krieglstein himself, or about a completely different topic.  Could you link to the specific sources which you think provide significant coverage?  WJ94 ( talk ) 16:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein ).  I would add to the above TP is mentioned only in passing in a handful of books (GBooks).  Krieglstein mentiones TP in his own papers, but these are barely cited.  It seems this idea was never taken up by others, nor did it make any impact.  128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 00:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per nom.  Artem.G ( talk ) 20:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As written, it verges on vanispamcruftisement , and there's nothing we can do to improve it in a policy-compliant way.  I agree with WJ94 's evaluation of the literature.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no WP:SIGCOV + sources are from the philosopher's books ( WP:PRIMARY ) Tirishan ( talk ) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Erica Iverson: Could not find reliable, secondary source significant coverage.  Only source cited on article that offers this is a primary source from UMass.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and United States of America .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has multiple third person sources to demonstrate notability.  Dwanyewest ( talk ) 00:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources in the article are not covering her directly and in depth.  #1 is stats N .  #2 is non-independent N .  #3 is a hyper-local interview of her and her husband and covers them as a couple, not her specifically in detail N .  #4 is non-independent N .  #5 is hyper-local news with <1 sentence of passing mentions of her N .  #6 is a contributed piece (so of unclear independence or editorial status) published in the same outlet as #3 and containing little more than quotes from her/her husband N .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP Football Notability by playing for a fully professional team in a nation league.  Better sourcing would enhance the article.  Demt1298 ( talk ) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Demt1298 , NFOOTY was deprecated last year and does not carry any weight.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay Is there a discussion I can read on this?  Demt1298 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Click on the WP Football Notability, then go back a level to Project Football and scroll down to notability; that essay has been replaced with GNG.  Here's the link [7] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or just go to WP:NSPORT .  NFOOTY is no longer listed there (and never superseded lack of GNG coverage even when it was).  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines, merely being mentioned in match reports which do not meet WP:SIGCOV .  WP Football Player Notability is an essay, and is not a substitute for the subject lacking third party sources.  The keep votes have so far not provided any sources to show notability.  User:Let'srun 23:11, 21 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Jhalra Jama Masjid: - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are two sources and neither have any coverage on the title.  One of the source indiastan.com shows a location of different mosque with unnamed street address.  Fails WP:N and per nom fails WP:GNG .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no indication of notability.  Fram ( talk ) 08:17, 26 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Mabbly: The article is completely promotional and really says very little.  Checking for secondary sources finds some fluff PR pieces.  Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Illinois .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as it seems promotional, especially in the second paragraph.  2NumForIce ( speak | edits ) 23:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - self-promotional and not notable enough.  I couldn't find any significant coverage.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I see some references, but not independent ones.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:12, 27 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
2026 Clarksville mayoral election: There's been no coverage of this election in WP:RS given that it's in three years .  No listed candidates appear to have made an election bid, they're just copied from 2022 Clarksville mayoral election .  A412 ( Talk • C ) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Tennessee .  A412 ( Talk • C ) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, there is currently no coverage available about this event.  Left guide ( talk ) 06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This article can always be re-created should significant coverage of the election come up.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of RS.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Vann Tailamey: The only available sources are WP:ROUTINE game coverage, which does not convey notability, and reference/database sites.  No evidence of the minimum one piece of WP:SIGCOV required for athletes.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 23:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cambodia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Nana (C++ library): There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with nominator, I tried searching for the sources, but couldn't find anything, just random blogs (e.g. "The 7 Best C++ Frameworks").  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  Skt34 ( talk ) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike.  Daniel ( talk ) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:PERNOM , in short, it is a bad habit to just post Delete without providing your reasons.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are at least two books that refer to this library (The German book "C++ Schnelleinstieg", ISBN 9783747503249, page 45, that praises ease of use for C++ beginners, and Soft Computing Applications, ISBN 9783030519926, page 289).   At the time I wrote the initial version of that article, I found out that many other GUI libraries on wikipedia (see some to the ones mentioned in section "see also") did not have more notability evidence (e.g. some have no references at all, some have only blog references, some have only self references except one reference to a financial transactions), and the sources provided appeared sufficient in comparison.   I do not object to the deletion , especially as this library does not seem to be maintained anymore, but if this article gets deleted, there should be equal treatment and those other ones lacking notability should be deleted as well.  Christophe ( talk ) 12:57, 22 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
FXCentrum: Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi ( talk ) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi ( talk ) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: The write-up contains numerous references to a variety of independent platforms, which offer mixed reviews, both negative and positive.  It belongs to a minor CFD trader predominantly serving countries in Africa.  Paolodc13 ( talk ) 07:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Frantisek, did you literally regenerate that sentence in ChatGPT and log in as a sock to Ctrl+V that in?  I don't think I've seen a more naked attempt to do so in all my years here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The US and other countries are a no-go with this platform, it's based on a random island in the middle of nowhere for tax purposes (the company's principal officers haven't even bothered to visit Seychelles), and the keep votes only have contributed to this article and nowhere else and sound like they wrote their statements with ChatGPT.  It's a COI PROMO SPAM piece that needs to go.  Nate • ( chatter ) 22:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note

Discussion outcome: delete
Mainstream Media (media group): Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard.  Aronitz ( talk ) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (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/2023 November 30 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Companies , Websites , Bahrain ,  and United Kingdom .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko talk 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : This organization definitely exists, because I can find several passing mentions of them in directories.   But their name appears designed to make it hard to find information about them, possibly so that a blatantly promotional Wikipedia article like this one is the only source of information (same goes for Big News Network, below, about which I could find more).   We shouldn't help them.   But if someone could find reliable sources I would reconsider.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete per WP:G11 as @ Kinopiko mentioned.  Couldn't find good sources.  Infomemoh ( talk ) 02:46, 4 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Peter Donnelly (artist): Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists ,  and New Zealand .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This person does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST .  Mostly what was found online is social media and blogs.  There is a little local human-interest coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG ; I can't find anything that one would normally see like reviews of his work in notable art magazine, museum collections, etc.  Netherzone ( talk ) 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:ARTIST .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I do not find good sources for this person.  Lots of Peter Donnellys, but this one is not notable.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Mariners RFC: Broc ( talk ) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union ,  and Caribbean .  Broc ( talk ) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Joe Turner Classic: Joeykai ( talk ) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [63] ] and [ [64] ] Absolon S. Kent ( talk ) 17:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Absolon : The sources you've cited don't come close to being SIGCOV of the Joe Turner Classic.  I have an open mind, but we need far better than that if we are going to keep this.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to show this meets the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  After ten days at AfD, no SIGCOV presented.  Will reconsider if SIGCOV is found.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:48, 29 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete
Black Thorn (character): I tried a search combination of "Black Thorn" + "DC", "Black Thorn" + "Kupperberg", etc. but I can only find WP:USERGEN blogs.  I'd suggest a merge to List of DC Comics characters: B § Black Thorn , but I don't think much of the actual biographical text is usable. .  – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .  – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is nothing to merge, it is WP:ALLPLOT .  Adding more plot to a list that already fails WP:LISTN does not improve the situation.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's non-notable.  There is zero reception.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete yet another cruft article about some exceedingly minor superhero.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Very minor character.  Searching for sources using both her superhero name as well as her "real" name tuned up nothing in reliable sources.  Not even notable enough to be merged or mentioned at any kind of character list article.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:48, 14 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete