hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria: However, it was recreated in November 2023 by the same article creator, who was confirmed as a sockpuppet.  Despite its recreation, the current version of the article remains similar to its previous iteration from July 2023.  Consequently, the arguments presented during the previous AfD remain applicable, highlighting the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see anything about this person online.  Sources 10-15 are orange per Cite Highllighter, so iffy notability.  I looked over the last AfD, it doesn't help move this discussion either way.  I'm not seeing notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Language , Islam , Brunei ,  and Indonesia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find notability here.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  Not meet WP:GNG criteria.  Deleted at idwiki.  Ariandi Lie Let's talk 11:00, 16 March 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
Jean-Luc Benoît: Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.  Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts ,  and France .  Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He passes GNG because of references like this one: "Muret. Boxe : Jean-Luc Benoit prend sa retraite, chapeau l'artiste !" .  ladepeche.fr (in French) .  Retrieved 2024-04-15 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having one sources indicating his retirement does not pass signification coverage .  Need at least 5-7 sources from independent , reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification .  Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.  Cassiopeia talk 04:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, there is no requirement of seven significant sources to pass GNG; only "multiple", which could, and sometimes has, meant two sources of depth.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant is not means 1 or 2 9couple) or 3 ( a few) or 4 (several).  Cassiopeia talk 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:NMMA leaves a fairly clear guideline for MMA fighters and I don't see that here.  Dan • ✉ 06:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject is not notable as per nom.  Good faith search shows fight announcements and results.  Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA.  Lacking significant coverage.  Article seems to have been created because he fought Andrew Tate which is not enough.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 16:14, 15 April 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
Space Shuttle launch countdown: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : basically a regurgitation of primary documents from NASA.  The topic is amply covered in the space shuttle article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, delete off per nom.  Overly technical minutia of no encyclopedic value.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The actual Space Shuttle article adequately summarizes the launch prep and launch, so I don't really see a need for any kind of merging.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 05:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:GNG .  Is not suitable for an encyclopedia.  User:Let'srun 03:54, 29 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
2028 Republican National Convention: WP:Toosoon SecretName101 ( talk ) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America .  SecretName101 ( talk ) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is a clear cut WP:TOOSOON -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Obviously WP:TOOSOON .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:TOOSOON .  The Republicans haven't decided on location yet.  — Maile ( talk ) 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 I wouldn't say that site selection  is cutoff point before which an article cannot be created, as we started articles for 2024 conventions before their locations were selected.  However, now is simply not he time for a 2028 RNC article as there is nothing more than early speculation as to the location with miniscule coverage (without any actual major action towards bidding, or even the initiation of a bidding process), and the 2024 conventions are still more than a year away from happening themselves.  Also, in retrospect, the 2024 convention articles were published at least maybe half a year too early (my bad).  Should have waited until formal bidding was underway to move them out of the draft space so they'd have actual meat to their content.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 04:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree, this is a clear-cut WP:TOOSOON case.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:TOOSOON is an essay and does not provide grounds for deletion.  WP:CHRYSTAL , however, is policy and does provide grounds for deletion: while this is a certain future event, it is lacking in SIGCOV RS.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:27, 30 April 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
Taggart Crossing, Indiana: Mangoe ( talk ) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:V .  Nothing to suggest this is an actual "community".  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete More GNIS nonsense, no information found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are only about 300 vague and passing  mentions in the local paper, which is not very many when considering 100+ years of newspaper coverage.  None of these provide any detail regarding the place.  I'm rather confidant it was just a name of rural area centered around a named crossing of some kind.  These three newspaper clippings [5] [6] [7] layout the entire history of the county, and couldn't spare more than the two words in the name of the place.  This also provides alot of useful info about how towns get created, and the nature of postoffices that is very useful for AFD argument.  James.folsom ( talk ) 02:07, 20 April 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
Diver, Ontario: – dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada .  – dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point.  TH1980 ( talk ) 23:31, 30 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
MIL-L-63460: One among thousands with no indication of significance in the article and no WP:SIGCOV of the standard itself to be found.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete seems to be an unremarkable lubricant, as nominator says no case is made why this deserves a standalone article.  The number of the spec suggests that there are many many similar specs; do any of these have articles?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do, I'm working my way through them.  Most seem unnotable.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep agree that the article is not remarkable, but 'CLP' is the singular weapons lubricator in the U.S. military.  There are many MIL-STDs, but CLP is the only weapons lubricator in use.  Probably some editing might help this?  Highspeed ( talk ) Editing can only go so far if there's no secondary sources.  There are many things that are the "only one" used, and most of them are not independently notable.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  11:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:33, 28 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
Sound Party (2023 film): The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space.
 There are three stages of development for films:  1.  Planned films which have not begun production.   These should not have free-standing articles.   Sometimes a redirect may be in order, such as to the producer, or the film series.  2.  Films that have begun production, but have not been released.   These films are only notable if production itself has been notable.   A passing mention that production has started (or finished) does not establish notability  .  3.  Films that have been released, whether for theatrical viewing, for television, for film festivals, or otherwise.   These films are notable based on reception and reviews, or for other reasons.  This film is in group 2, films that have begun production.   The article makes no mention of anything notable about production.  This film is too soon , and the article should be deleted from mainspace.   When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as the film may get reliable reviews upon release.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per DareshMohan.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : I have struck my initial ! vote, as the pages in draft space and article space appear to be identical.  This version should be deleted per BD2412.  - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I tried to close this as Draftify but there is already an article in Draft space so having two would be inappropriate.  So, do you want that one deleted in favor of this version?  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , given that it is a duplicate of an existing draft.  The duplication itself is the larger problem here.  BD2412 T 01:48, 20 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
Asoz Rashid: CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Iraq ,  and United Kingdom .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I nominated the thing for G11, it remains fundamentally promotional and there is no notability here.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple notable sources, there is payment disclosure on the user page.  Fina80 ( talk ) 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't seem very notable and a lot of it is written like a promotion.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:58, 23 October 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
Alexander S. Bermange: Reads like a resume.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems like a vanity page to me.  Definitely non-notable.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A vanity page filled with puffery about a non-notable person.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify . Very poorly executed (no footnotes) WP:BLP of dubious relation to WP:NBIO . At best this could be moved to a draftspace, if the author appears and promises to work on this more. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:35, 25 April 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
Ricky Rick: Essentially, the subject is not independently notable outside of their activities associated with the group, therefore does qualify for a stand-alone article.  ihateneo ( talk ) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Mexico .  ihateneo ( talk ) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Someone with his name died recently, but it's all in non-RS.  I'm not seeing notability for this entertainer.  Sourcing used in the article doesn't help.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per @ Oaktree b Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Yet another effort to prop up a new artist through creating their altar in Wikipedia.  Thankfully, they keep using kamikaze accounts , usually a dead give-away .  Also, thankfully, the whole promotional aspect is evident, thus saving time for everyone concerned.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:03, 22 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
Elaine Hernández: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article fails WP:GNG , and the references don't do much to indicate notability.  Two stat sites, par for the course for these types of articles, and after a quick search, we find more stat sites.  IncompA 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no sources indicating GNG being passed.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:25, 24 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
Lázaro Reyes: Several searches, using different keywords, brought up nothing but database pages.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cuba .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - same as nom, could only find database sources.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:48, 26 March 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
Theory of decreasing responsibility: Seems to have been similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy term and invest the difference .   – I s o chrone ( T ) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .   – I s o chrone ( T ) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The page is very small and unsourced.  2001:1970:5ACA:E000:0:0:0:A186 ( talk ) 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't seem to have much coverage online.  Most sources are from Primerica, so they don't count towards WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARandomName123 ( talk • contribs ) 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : surprised to see it was unsourced even before the culling.  Independently couldn't find any demonstration of notability.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:36, 6 November 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