hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
John Fasana : No WP:SIGCOV .  Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I couldn't find any verified information on when John Fasana was born.  Also, John Fasana's website is just a Chinese web page saying that the site was created successfully.  Busition ( talk ) 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN .  Shaws username ( talk ) 13:19, 12 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
Renata Christian : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , Caribbean ,  and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:22, 2 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!  05:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The Virgin Island newspaper source used is fine, but that's all I can find about this individual.  Nothing else we can use to source the article, not meeting BLP.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is messing up the formatting on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WAYV_(disambiguation) at the log page for September 23 for some reason.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It just called for one space on the log page.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, nice fix.  Could not figure it out.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:21, 23 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
Federation of Reformed Churches : Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG .  Review of existing sources: Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.  Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.  Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.  Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.  Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.  Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.  , 10, 11.  Link , Link , Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.  I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , United States of America , New York ,  and Ohio .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  The souce analysis supports the rationale.  So many non RS with little to none GNG.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:57, 23 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
Imagine Sports : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find usage of the phrase "Imagine sports without xyz" but nothing for this company.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Don't see any GNG level sources under any of the names this company has used.  Fails WP:NCORP .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:34, 11 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
Aalay Pathu Malai Mathu : This does not list it , nor does this .  Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails notability.  There is no significant coverage about this film and its release date in any reliable sources.  It does look like there is a soundtrack for the movie but that's about it.  RangersRus ( talk ) 17:57, 14 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
Charles Stiebel : Note tag.  No indication of significance.  scope_creep Talk 13:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom .  CptViraj ( talk ) 13:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:23, 20 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
BLEND : It's all routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases.  bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  From what I could find, does not pass NCORP at this time.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:10, 18 July 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
Southern Cross Drive, Canberra : Fails WP:GEOROAD .  TarnishedPath talk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia .  TarnishedPath talk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2010.   ☺  It's a major road, but it's a largely undocumented major road.   The only way for readers to verify things like the speed limits is to go to the road.   There are no sources in the article, and although I can turn up generalities about road construction in the A.C.T., I cannot turn up specifics down to this level of detail of individual roads.  Delete .  Uncle G ( talk ) 14:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For the reasons already outlined.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 19:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as above.  Bduke ( talk ) 04:03, 22 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
Sam's Chicken : The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability.  Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company.  It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself.  Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions.  This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself.  I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either.
 TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.  Zanahary ( talk ) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the IP editor.  I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent.  Be done with it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii ( talk ) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines.  Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry.  CoffeeCrumbs ( talk ) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N .  OhHaiMark ( talk ) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability.  The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (

Discussion outcome: delete
Jeremy Childs : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Tennessee .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 21 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!  05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep , gah, the subject of this article is probably not notable, but the nominator has been banned at ANI for disruptive editing including a campaign of tendentious deletion nominations.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would say "No" to a procedural close.  बिनोद थारू has started a large number of AFDs and participated in even more.  We only close AFDs started by block-evading editors or if no deletion rationale has been presented.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I'll change my vote to delete .  Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NACTOR .  The subject has no significant coverage in secondary sources and has only had minor roles in notable productions.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:12, 3 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
W17CT-D : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A relatively new station (within this century) that seems to have only carried national services isn't likely to attain significiant coverage .  It's apparently part of a group of low-power stations affiliated with a local radio group, but none of the other TV stations appear to have (or should have) articles (though that's completely irrelevant to this article's merits ).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 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
Mohammed Barhouma : The page reads like a pretty classic curriculum vitae, and was worse before I trimmed the more gratuitous elements.  On the face of it, the case for notability is poor to non-existent, and a search for the subject in English language sources is not promising.  Better results may exist in an Arabic search, but there aren't currently any other sources on the Arabic version of the page either.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Jordan .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete an Arabic search throws up lots of author profiles on the sites of institutions he’s worked for/spoken at, interviews by him and pieces he’s authored, but zero in depth coverage in RIS.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:39, 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
Candela Corp : Makes many claims, so too long to be bunkum, but we should discuss.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the company was planning to go public , but in September 2022 withdrew its IPO .  As a public company, we would have likely seen a stream of news about it.  But by staying private, it remains in the shadows.  Owen× ☎ 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If the company had gone public, there would have been more sources to meet notability.  I think it withdrew the IPO.  Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 09:35, 16 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
List of Survivor (American TV series) winners : Furthermore, I even asked the one who rejected the draft whether the finalists list's scope should be narrowed to only winners.  Unfortunately, I was told that the list already exists at Survivor (American TV series)§Series overview .  In other words, implicitly, a separate biographical list of winners isn't needed.  Seems to me this list is a response to recent individual AFD nominations on winners, like Bob Crowley and Natalie White.  I can't help wonder whether this list meets WP:SAL and WP:BLP , and I wonder whether WP:BLP1E applies.  Preferably, should be either deleted or draft-ified or redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants or Survivor (American TV series) .  George Ho ( talk ) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ; expanded, 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Lists of people , Television ,  and United States of America .  George Ho ( talk ) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force .  Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Per nomination.  Arbitrary list that duplicates many existing pages.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom's comment - Hmm...  If the contestants list isn't a suitable destination target, how about Survivor (American TV series)#Series overview instead, which basically lists names of winners and runners-up?  -- George Ho ( talk ) 00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  List of series winners already exist in another list.  If the individual is notable enough, they'll have their own article.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 22:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : clearly a duplicate article.  // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 18 May 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
The Southern African Times : The closest we get is citation #5 , an unbylined awards roundup of Zimbabwe Achievers Award , whose coverage of this subject is limited to the fact that they won this London-based award of unclear repute.  Searching online, I mostly found self-promotional coverage of the SAT's founder, Farai Muvuti (e.g. [23] ).  signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Zimbabwe .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per nom. , I too saw the reference to the Zimbabwe Achievers Awards and thought that sounded significant.  Our page on those awards is problematic, but this would not be a problem if the awards were particularly notable, and/or if there were significant coverage about their award, but there is nothing.  As per the nom. , the repute of the awards is unclear, and there is nothing here to build an article from.  Other searches coming up blank.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:54, 21 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
Divine Temple Academy : Maliner ( talk ) 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Nepal .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find any in-depth coverage.  It is mentioned in Tulsipur, Dang and List of schools in Nepal so could be redirected to one of those should anyone wish to.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 1 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