hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Oxygen tetrafluoride: At any rate, it doesn't have a CAS number and there's nothing here that suggests that there's any empirical validation of any property of the stuff, much less that anyone has any idea of how to synthesize it.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , just because the compound is hypothetical and almost impossible to exist doesn’t mean it should have its own article.  Take radon hexafluoride for example.  Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the more reason to delete the latter.  The article on hexafluorides doesn't mention a radon version, and neither should we.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree: Delete .  Athel cb ( talk ) 08:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Inadequate coverage of something that doesn't exist.  Reywas92 Talk 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hypothetical compounds can certainly be notable, but this one hasn't been the subject of any systematic study that I can find.   "Predictions" about donor-acceptor interactions are not systematic study, and one of the two papers cited for that claim never mentions the compound at all, only lists it in a table alongside a bunch of other oxygen-fluorine compounds they admit probably cannot exist.   Database entries do not count toward notability, and this compound doesn't even have that: No CAS number, nothing in PubChem or Chemspider.   The article cites an AP Chemistry study guide as a source, for crying out loud.   Come on .   I could draw a helium atom with nineteen vanadium atoms bonded to it; does that mean WP should have an article on "helium nonadecavanadide"?  Delete .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the above, especially User:WeirdNAnnoyed .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question - Is a merge or redirect to Oxygen fluoride worth considering as an WP:ATD ?  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the OF article does no more than mention OF 4 , I think not.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen trifluoride .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per User:WeirdNAnnoyed .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the list can be endless if we made a list of “possible” compounds FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 17:28, 3 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
Sri Ram (film): There are no reviews, and there are only passing mentions in sources, except for a website viggy.com which gave content in a news capsule form.  The film is also known by alternate spellings "Shri Ram" and "Shreeram", however I could not find any coverage.  Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Karnataka .  Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the nom, this has no identifiable notability.  UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 15 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 11:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Finding sources for Kannada films of the early 2000s is a difficult task.  Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annavru (2003 film) , Viggy can be considered as a reliable source for older Kannada films (since the writers are hired and the articles are entirely about the film).   This source from August 2003 claims that the film was still running (the film released in May 2003).  If someone can help navigate the Deccan Herald archives , we can search for a review.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 09:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As metioned, viggy is the only source with any substantial content, but even that is in capsule form.  Perhaps move this to draftspace to give time to someone to look at the archives?  Jay 💬 11:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay : There is no reviews in the archives .  Close the discussion.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 08:03, 1 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
Nikolay Averin: There's some brief mentions in Russian-language writeups of local youth chess tournaments, but no significant biographic coverage.  The strongest source I could find was this .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Games ,  and Russia .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Can't find any SIGCOV.  It's also a BLP that is entirely negative, consisting only of a couple of trivial incidents of supposed bad sportsmanship.  Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't thought about the coverage of the chess matches being negative, but you're right.  With that in mind, it's worth noting that the subject is not only a living person, but also a child.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 20 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
Abbas Musa: No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats.  fails GNG.  X ( talk ) 11:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime ,  and Bangladesh .  X ( talk ) 11:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG , and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD , delete.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:23, 16 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
Prakriya Green Wisdom School: Created by a single edit editor.  LibStar ( talk ) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Karnataka .  LibStar ( talk ) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd .  Logs : 2008-05 ✗ PROD -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Comment- I Found This: [1] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There's some mentions in news sources (regarding how reliable said sources are, I'm not quite certain) but there's really no WP:SIGCOV about any encyclopedic content.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  This source from above [1] fails WP:IS (eg: "We found eight acres of land, with Eucalyptus plantations on it, close to a small lake (which did have water in it then). After clearing the eucalyptus, the first thing we did was to plant over 108 species of trees.", the extensive use of "we" in the source shows this is in an WP:IS. ) None of the sources in the article or BEFORE showed WP:IS WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 00:15, 4 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
Jean-Yves Bouguet: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Computing , Software ,  and California .  Owen× ☎ 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as not meeting any guideline.  Do say if anything is found.  Geschichte ( talk ) 23:30, 20 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
Celebrity Samurai: Scarlet Violet ( talk • contribs ) 06:41, 21 February 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 February 21 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games ,  and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 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!  05:40, 28 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
Garden Networks: - C HAMPION ( talk ) ( contributions ) ( logs ) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Internet ,  and Canada .  - C HAMPION ( talk ) ( contributions ) ( logs ) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : both this and GTunnel seem very thinly sourced.  Fails NCORP, as far as I can tell.  Owen× ☎ 22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Found nothing online meeting WP:SIRS (though "Garden Network" isn't the easiest search term to work with).  One reference also provides insufficient in-depth coverage.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  19:43, 17 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
Dhaka Dazzlers: Not enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability.  Fails WP:NSPORTS .  CycloneYoris talk!  01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football ,  and Bangladesh .  CycloneYoris talk!  01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Badminton ,  and Cricket .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable sports team, very little coverage, none of which would suffice passing guidelines, no suitable WP:ATD also.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reloable sources to establish notability.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there's not enough documented history or reliable media coverage to establish its notability on Wikipedia.  Dejaqo ( talk ) 00:46, 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
Dispersive PDE Wiki: Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or, failing that, put back to being a redirect.  There's no way to make an article about a niche, nearly quiescent website with no secondary-source coverage .  Content from this page was merged into Terence Tao on a flimsy rationale and then removed shortly thereafter.  If the edit history of material that has been gone since summer 2007 and won't be coming back is actually necessary to preserve, then we can have this cruft hang around as an {{ R with history }} .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Zero coverage beyond the wiki itself, a mathoverflow question or a blog post found online.  At the absolute most, merge (i.e. insert a single sentence about it) to Terence_Tao#Dispersive_partial_differential_equations .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 18:47, 24 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
Folasade Omotoyinbo: The sources about the subject are promotional pieces.  Does not meet WP:IS .  Nswix ( talk ) 00:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Nigeria .  Nswix ( talk ) 00:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most of the awards sound fishy, the City People awards has an article, but it also seems suspect.  I'm not seeing notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator .  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Non-trivial coverage in the Nigerian press.  See Newspapers published in Nigeria .  I don't know about City People but The Nation , Vanguard and This Day are major national newspapers I read when in Nigeria.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral leaning to delete based on this comment by User:JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji . It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my brief time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I sampled 10 of the sources and all of them were non-independent Q&A interviews, non-independent coverage of announcements from her ("Omotoyinbo said...", "according to Omotoyinbo", etc.), clearly promotional non-independent pieces (especially from orgs she is affiliated with, like City People ), or NCORP-failing coverage of her business.  Does not meet GNG.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nigerian papers use a different writing style to the Western style you are probably familiar with.  The tone may seem promotional, but it would be way more blatant if it actually was.  Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, note that several participants were actively canvassed to this and similar deletion discussions.  Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see what that has to do with me?  I wasn't canvassed.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the reasons for a promotional style, the current refs still lack independent SIGCOV of her as they are almost all just repeating things she said.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I got canvassed to some Nigerian politicians page, and didnt vote, cause I dont know enough about politics.  Nswix ( talk ) 19:06, 18 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
Achol Jok Mach: As always, people regardless of occupation are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on third party coverage and analysis about their work to externally validate its significance -- but five of the six footnotes here are primary source content self-published by organizations she was directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability at all, and the only independent third-party source is a glancing namecheck of her existence on one page of a book about her country's fight for independence, which isn't substantive enough to single-handedly vault her over GNG all by itself.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she actually has enough of the correct type of sourcing, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Radio ,  and Africa .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Bearcat : - I think you're right about this one.  Lajmmoore ( talk ) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  The sources invoked are extremely lame: A self-written cv ; a fellowship announcement where our subject is not mentioned at all; one single mention in a book about "Africa's longest war"; then a few more routine listings.  Her work seems admirable but Wikipedia is a not a political promotion vehicle either way.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All sources either are passing mentions or not independent.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete RS does not exist at this time.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per The Gnome and a lack of notable coverage.  Giraffer ( talk · contribs ) 20:26, 26 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
Bahrain–Spain relations: In fact, all sources are primary.  Lacking elements of notable relations like embassies and state visits.  The agreements are minor.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Bahrain ,  and Spain .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:42, 21 November 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!  00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- I can find no sources at all that would make this notable (fails GNG).  It appears to be part of a trend to make a stand-alone article for every combination of countries on the planet, regardless of how insignificant the relationship might be.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per above.  Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 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
John Garbett: As always, film producers are not "inherently" notable just because they and their work exist, and have to show external validation of their significance in third party reliable sources -- but two of the three "references" are his own LinkedIn and his IMDb profile, which are not notability-building sources, and the only third-party source is a single article in a minor local-interest magazine, which isn't enough to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only starter source on the table.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : there is no source about the subject other than two unreliable sources, Egeymi ( talk ) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 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