hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Henry Spencer (Psych): The one source that does is much more of a passing mention.  Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well just based on the sources in the article I would be a ! delete, but others might find some sources.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my search, there is only part of a book that gives him any mention, and that is Arp's Psych and Philosophy .  However, it is far from being enough to warrant a stand-alone page.  Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Books are definitely better than website articles in my opinion.  However...  Delete per nom.  I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV aside from the occasional recap.  Although I am open to changing it if someone finds more.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, just "characterization" (but see my first point).  Fails GNG as written.  Ping me if better sources are found.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Piotrus.  Not enough reception in reliable sources.  Fails WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:30, 18 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
Michael Breen (human rights activist): WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage.  Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability.  Sources 1/23 , 6 , 7/9/11 , 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2 , 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4 , 10 , 14 , 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8 , 27 , 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject.  24 does not mention the subject.  Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Military ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 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 03:34, 9 May 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!  03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization.  Only edits theyve made.  And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right?  Appears to be undisclosed COI.  Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First ?  Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger ( talk • contribs ) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (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!  03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My strong delete wasn't enough?  ;) MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC Delete : It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar.  It reads like a business card for his services.  I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well.  BusterD ( talk ) 21:06, 23 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
Devora Radeva: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and Bulgaria .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSKATE -- Here2rewrite ( talk ) 16:22, 14 June 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!  21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available for this subject to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:22, 16 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
Kadidia Diarra: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:44, 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
Marilyn I. Walker: May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article.  Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Authors , Women ,  and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event.  I found one published review of her one book [45] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book.  Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR .  Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1 ; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker .  I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/question - is this a case where a redirect is more appropriate?  The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts.  Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school.  I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a redirect to the section on the Brock University article would be useful.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:12, 25 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
St. John's Sr. Sec. School, Meerut: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity ,  and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:01, 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
Chepakovich valuation model: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable and highly-likely to be self-promotion given the editing history and the reference spam that I just removed from Alexander Chepakovich .  Doesn't appear in any reliable texts about valuation.  Jfire ( talk ) 19:38, 18 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
The Bibites: There is nothing in the article that implies that the game satisfies game notability or software notability , because there is no mention of any significant coverage by third parties.   An examination of the references shows that none of them are independent or secondary.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 the-bibites.en.softonic.com Appears to be the official web site for the game.  No Yes Yes No 2 itch.io Web page to download the game No Yes Yes No 3 youtube.com A discussion of the game No Yes Maybe No 4 youtube.com An experience playing the game No No Maybe No 5 google.com Google search results No No Maybe No There is also a draft, which has been declined three times, after which the author copied the draft into article space.   The article should be deleted.   The draft can either be improved by adding evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources , or left alone in draft space.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This article was proposed for deletion by User:Nagol0929 , but the PROD was removed by the originator.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no independent and secondary sources for my Wkipedia page to start with, so that is the reason why I did not add any to my page.  Plus,the reason that I copied the draft into article space is because 1(I was just too impatient to wait for my draft to get moved to article space) and 2(I did not know how to move drafts into article space myself).  Rtyjhnghfn ( talk ) 04:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If, as the article creator says, no reliable secondary sources exist, this game does not qualify for an article.  Also, @ Rtyjhnghfn : especially as an inexperienced editor, your impatience to get the article published is not an excuse to bypass the Articles for Creation process.  TornadoLGS ( talk ) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify .  Fails WP:GNG as written.  A case of WP:TOOSOON (particularly in the context of the author writing "I was just too impatient"...)?   -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I can't find any third party coverage on the subject, and the article creator's comments speak for themselves.  Blue Edits ( talk ) 10:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per both WP:GNG and article creator's own words.  Dawnbails ( talk ) 18:47, 30 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
Chris Lynne: Technically satisfies criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC but is in a position of power at a for-profit university (business) as opposed to a traditional university.  Unsure if this qualifies.  30Four ( talk ) 04:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral - TJMSmith you need to do some editing to this article.   It does indeed look like a resume, but that's because you put it together like a list of accomplishments.   Please consider re-working this article into a flowing prose article, paragraphs, etc.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is written as a professional profile , and WP:NOTLINKEDIN .  — siro χ o 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not very familiar with American university system, but the profile makes the subject look like a businessman, not an academic, and the article on University of Phoenix does not suggest it is a high-quality institution.  I don't think Lynne is the type of subject that WP:PROF #6 was designed for?  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I think that for this institution, treating him as a businessman rather than as an academic makes more sense, so we should use WP:NBIO not WP:NPROF .  I didn't find any news stories with in-depth coverage of him that would count, so I don't think he passes.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral .  The University of Phoenix is in the process of becoming a state-related university.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegemeltdown2 ( talk • contribs ) 19:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This might change in the future, but as it stands, the University of Phoenix is not the kind of entity that WP:PROF#C6 is talking about; I concur that treating him as a businessman instead of an academic is more sensible.  And treating him in that manner, there doesn't seem to be anything substantial to make a wiki-notability case upon.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:36, 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
AF Compressors: I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically.  It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left.  References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used.  The French article uses the same references.  Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful.  I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as failing NCORP.  I analyzed anew and reached the same conclusions as nom.  The text is bad but not bad enough for TNT.  Hence, just like the nom, I researched notability and could find very few sources for a company that claims to be world leaders in their field.  All I found was niche and/or primary.  gidonb ( talk ) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet  the basic criteria for General Notability Guidelines Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 13:24, 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
Jarret Davis: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:20, 1 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
College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Sardarkrushinagar: I don't know if it makes sense as a redirect.  Ben Azura ( talk ) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Could not find a single secondary reference to it.  Not even worth a redirect.  MNewnham ( talk ) 02:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Ben Azura ( talk ) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Gujarat .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  I would not oppose a redirect to Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This has some coverage of one of its departments.  There is a ready-made redirect here, providing it can be sourced.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:32, 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
Peter Bielik (journalist): No prominent awards or achievements BoraVoro ( talk ) 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Television ,  and Slovakia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 29 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
Norrköpings IF Bosna: Modest history peaking on the 5th tier.  Geschichte ( talk ) 06:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:47, 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
ArX: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:44, 22 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!  07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:GNG .  I was unable to find significant coverage of this version control system in secondary sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 2 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