hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
It's an Honour: Sufficient information is already provided on the article Australian honours and awards system .  Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (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/2024 March 27 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having managed naught but two primary sources in its 12.85 years, delete it.   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP: LMGTFY : australian government honours and awards ...The site is still live and merely needs a link update.  Perform WP:BEFORE next time.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A link to the website itself is not a source.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am firmly on the Delete side since I started this discussion.  You see, the article is explaining a website that the Australian honours and awards system page can easily provide all the information for, and the website has changed so the content is not very accurate.  I do not think that this article satisfies any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) .  The website is not explained in an encyclopaedic manner, with little elaboration on much of the website.  This guideline I have outlined states that the website an article is written about should have multiple independent sources backing up the information, I can hardly find any news pieces or similar.  I do not think this article is particularly notable in terms of sourcing.  Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Zero sources that establish notability under WP:GNG .  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No reliable secondary sources to establish notability.  Fails WP:RSS .  Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:16, 1 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
Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona: I could not find coverage for it on Google and Google News Archive.  Also comes with a complimentary bit of WP:OR : It is one of two locations in Arizona with this name, the other being located in Coconino County.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Our only sources are GNIS and a GNIS mirror.   Nuff said.   Not notable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I too cannot find any mention of the populated place on Google Maps.  The closest I get is Sand Springs Drive, which is only a road, not a populated place.  Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me ) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The only thing there on satellite is a few sparse residences located within a mile of the given coordinates, but nothing else but desert can be seen for miles.  No evidence to suggest this is a "community" of any sort.  Fails WP:GEOLAND .  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 22:48, 31 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
Aryen Suresh Kute: All three sources cited appeared to be a distributed paid content and an independent search to determine the subject's notability returned negative Noneate ( talk ) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Noneate ( talk ) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete PROMO, only PR and pay to publish website listings found.  I swear we've had someone that looked like him before in AfD...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  (Note that I published the article from AfC, which now seems like a misjudgement to me. Self-trout feels appropriate.)  I based my evaluation of the sources on discussions from WP:RSN , also found at WP:NPRSG .  Ater looking a little further into them, I agree that these are not the high-quality sources required to establish notability, particularly for a BLP.  Since there seems to be a lot of agreement on this, I would suggest a brief discussion at RSN to reclassify these sources for future convenience.  @ Noneate @ Oaktree b what do you think?  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, but someone would have to nominate it or create the discussion there at RSN, I'm not sure how to do that.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO only.  I'd suggest returning to draft space, but I don't think this has a six-months chance at improvement.  I agree that the sources should be added to a discussion at RSN.  UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are the refs for easy access: [8] [9] [10] - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Obvious self-promotion.  Deb ( talk ) 14:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have written plenty of business bios, and this person is clearly insufficiently notable, failing WP:GNG .  Edwardx ( talk ) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All sources are sponsored.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Falls short of meeting the notability guidelines mentioned in WP:GNG.  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:48, 3 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
Kajona: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines.  No relevancies in Gnews, Gbooks and scholar.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see any sources to establish NSOFT.  Owen× ☎ 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : very little source online, just the software website.  She was a fairy 02:54, 1 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
Dewi (2019 TV series): Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth Source eval: Promo event ::  1.  "Pemain dan Kru Sinetron Dewi Gelar Syukuran dengan Anak Yatim".  iNews.ID (in Indonesian).  November 18, 2019.  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Promo announcement ::  2. ^ "Sinetron Dewi RCTI: Ada Ririn Dwi Ariyanti dan Ashraf Sinclair".  www.popmagz.com.  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Part memorial, part promo about an episode, nothing SIGCOV about the subject ::  3. ^ Media, Kompas Cyber (February 19, 2020).  "Ririn Dwi Ariyanti Unggah Video Terakhir Ashraf Sinclair Usai Syuting".  KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian).  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Listed, not SIGCOV ::  4. ^ "Asia Contents Awards Nominations 2020".  asiacontentsawards.com.  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Listed, not SIGCOV ::  5. ^ "Reuben Elishama Hadju Masuk Nominasi 2nd Asia Contents Awards Busan International Film Festival".  iNews.ID (in Indonesian).  October 19, 2020.  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Listed, not SIGCOV ::  6. ^ "Asia Contents Awards Winners 2020".  asiacontentsawards.com.  Retrieved April 4, 2023.  Nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have found no sigcov of this tv series.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:50, 18 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
Saga Petroleum LLC: Zero secondary sources.  No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - my own search came up with nothing establishing notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's something in the Wall Street Journal , May 11, 1999 - Norsk Hydro Offers $2.23 Billion In Stock to Buy Saga Petroleum - By Bhushan Bahree Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal . ... There's something about the company here involving legal action which we know would generate other news, Casper Star-Tribune , Monday, June 14, 2010 - Page 26 ....  and DEQ , March 16, 2018 - Montana Air Quality Permit #2770-11 a transfer to Blue Sky Energy.  Something here on Casetext , 11-12-2015 - Nucor, Inc. v. PetroHawk Energy Corp.  . ... And there's CMI - Chr.  Michelsen Institute, 2000 - The Snorre Field and the rise and fall of Saga Petroleum - Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås (2000) .  At the very least there's a good reason to consider a redirect.  The problem is that we rely on Google and often it's a case of "If it ain't in Google then it don't exist".  Well, I've often found that to be the case with how some folk look at things.  In the past I've been given mineral and mining publications.  Not exciting stuff for most people but within the industry they were relied upon for valuable information, and we sometimes have to look at things in a different perspective.  When you go to the physical then there's content there that makes a whole world of difference.  Karl Twist ( talk ) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Karl Twist : I have just been looking at the sources you have provided.  The first source is about Saga Petroleum , a Norwegian company of the same name.  The second source appears to be a classified advertisement placed by a government official, which does not establish notability.  The third source is a letter from a government department, obviously doesn't assist.  The next source is a primary source, a legal case not even directly involving Saga Petroleum LLC.  The final source is again about the unrelated Norwegian company.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Article needs a great amount of improving.  Karl Twist ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:CORP -- Devoke water 22:57, 28 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
List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS ; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage.  None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this.  All the others are unsourced.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN .  This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 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
Incubate Debate: The reliable sources are generally about the National Speech and Debate Association , with only passing mentions of Incubate Debate.  ~ A412 talk!  06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and United States of America .  ~ A412 talk!  06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Would have to agree with nom.  The sources I am finding are mentions and do not pass WP:ORGCRIT or are not WP:CORPDEPTH .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the coverage I've found doesn't establish the organization's significance in a way that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations.  Dejaqo ( talk ) 00:14, 2 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
Andrea Martani: The closest I found to WP:SIGCOV were a few sentences of coverage interspersed throughout an interview .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Italy .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per my check, I found nothing that can establish notability to the subject, the subject totally fails WP:GNG .  Grab Up - Talk 16:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:18, 21 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
Vion Pharmaceuticals: Cannot find any other sources.  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine .  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:48, 3 December 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!  08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article created then later updated by the WP:SPA VPInc regarding the progress of their drug trials then in progress.  The FDA rejection and subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the firm do not provide attained notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 17:13, 10 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
Kurds of European ancestry: Earlier signs of this problem are also evident in one of the edits of the creator , where they altered sourced information (the table below), while adding another reference (that also failed verification).  Another example is Headbomb’s check , where they couldn’t find any such source listed in the article.  This is a very clear instance of WP:CUCKOO .  Seemingly random page numbers and sometimes random titles, random sources.  Now, with the cuckoo content removed, the article is not coherent anymore and much of the remaining unchecked content will also probably fail verification.  I thought of how the article could be improved.  The only relevant information regarding who "Kurds of European ancestry" might be is the table, but we already have the page Chechen Kurds , which refers to Kurdified Caucasian immigrants.  The original version of the article discussed Balkan immigrants to Kurdistan, but I was unable to find any sources on that.  Even if there were such sources, this article wouldn’t be appropriate, since it had to be renamed as something like "Balkan immigrants in Kurdistan" or with any term popular among the sources.  "Kurds of European ancestry" in itself is not appropriate since none of the sources include this term and is thus a WP:OR / WP:SYNTH grouping.  The research papers on genetics are placed after very general statements and are more appropriate in a page or section about the genetics of Kurds.  Overall, I can’t think of how this article can be improved.  Aintabli ( talk ) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Europe .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A content fork.  Not even worth a redirect because there are just a couple of thousand of these people and nobody will ever search for them.  Desertarun ( talk ) 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Semsûrî ( talk ) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree that is this not really worthy of a separate encyclopedia entry.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:21, 20 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
Kenneth P. Green: Unable to find out much about him, apart from a Guardian story saying that he offered to pay scientists to write articles questioning global warning when he worked at the American Enterprise Institute .  I think that's BLP1E, and that his career as an advocate and writer doesn't show notability.  There are some hits on Google Scholar, but https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep33348.pdf is from a Fraser Institute publication rather than a mainstream independent peer-reviewed journal.  It has some citations, but possibly not enough.  See also the previous AfD.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Environment , Canada ,  and United States of America .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The nom's search for notability is not promising.  Looking at the article itself, it's very promotional.  It encompasses a professional profile, and beyond that, relays way too much of the subject's own voice.  — siro χ o 09:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On reconsideration, I withdraw my request for re-instatement.  Feel free to leave the page in deleted status.  No need to waste more time on the issue.  24.121.19.234 ( talk ) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , however suggest letting this run despite the IP/subject's change of heart so we have consensus v. a PROD to fall back on.  Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   I'll ! vote keep on climate change deniers with reasonable claim of notability, but that seems to be absent here.   Little sign of WP:NPROF , and while there are one or two passing mentions in news articles, I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , does not pass GNG or NPROF.  -- hroest 18:44, 25 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
Henry Foster III: They have to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO .  This subject lacks in all, the sources presented in the article and from WP:BEFORE can not be used to the establish notability of this subject based on GNG.  Sources are either lacking in independence or mostly in significant coverage of the subject.  Most are WP:ROUTINE coverages which provide nothing but an announcement of Foster winning the seat or what have we, while some are result sheets, etc.  Nothing to establish notability here.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This could be deleted as WP:ONEEVENT - all we have is that he ran for a local office and won.  The only personal details are from non-independent sources (his campaign web site).  Everything else is routine local election stuff, and those articles are quite short with little information about him.  Lamona ( talk ) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - while I am sympathetic, I think the consensus is that the city of San Diego isn't big or prominent enough to convey automatic notability to all its public officials.  He won with less than 9,000 votes.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:47, 3 June 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