hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gharanai Khwakhuzhi: Source found are self publications or mentions.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions .  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And it was mostly created by a single editor , who only edited Khwakhuzhi-surnamed articles 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page!  Talk 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Bilateral relations , Politics ,  and United Arab Emirates .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a vanity article and possible self promotion.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom The Trash Compactor ( talk ) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:21, 25 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
Garcha Hotels: The existing sources mostly consist of interviews with its founder, routine coverage, or mere name drops, with many not even mentioning "Garcha Hotels."  A Google News search yielded similar results, failing to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH .  GSS 💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore .  GSS 💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Failed to find reliable source coverage.  No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and the subject doesn’t seem to meet WP:GNG .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 13:23, 2 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
TriTech Software Systems: "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 ++ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies .  HighKing ++ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Police , Software ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this , and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service.  It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP.  As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404.  I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources.  Lamona ( talk ) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I should mention that this source from the article is still live and is not bad, but still probably not near NCORP.  Lamona ( talk ) 01:57, 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
Cuba, North Dakota: The oldest topo labels a building (no longer extant) as "town hall", but that's not really good enough.  Searching is heavily masked by a trade deal but got nothing.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable, and it geolocates to a grain elevator complex.  A BEFORE search found nothing significant.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions .  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't seen any full documents but I've seen some references to people being near there, and someone sending a recipe to a 1950s cookbook who claimed to be from there.  This may require a close newspaper search since Cuba is such a common name?  SportingFlyer T · C 16:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1965 aerial photo , that Cuba School bottom and Cuba Mercantile to the right.  Why not redirect to Cuba Township, Barnes County, North Dakota ?  Haven't found anything useful for any article text.  The "Cuba Incident" ! fiveby ( zero ) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per Mangoe's argument against redirects.  fiveby ( zero ) 04:17, 31 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
Mailtraq: My WP:BEFORE search did not find evidence that this software has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.  (Previously deleted via PROD in 2007.)  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - article seems promotional, no references to support notability or quality.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable, promotional, and lacking sufficient media coverage.  -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 09:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devoke water 18:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Although I haven't found anything promotional in particular (and this is not a criteria of notability per se), the article doesn't show any sources, which makes it a good candidate for deletion for failing GNG .  Onetimememorial ( talk ) 20:40, 5 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
Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan: Since they are in fact different people, I don’t think this Khalid passes WP:GNG .  Uhooep ( talk ) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Uhooep ( talk ) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:18, 12 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!  07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  2601:249:9301:D570:E2:2A03:BDFF:6814 ( talk ) 02:08, 24 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!  07:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As above.  Celia Homeford ( talk ) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  We don't create articles on people simply because they are members of a ruling/royal family.  Independent notability must be established.  Keivan.f Talk 21:02, 27 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
Erez_Safar: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , In addition to what's stated in the nomination, the article was created as an advertisement.  Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:17, 25 April 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 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:PROMO begone!  But seriously, there's no coverage, just fluff and personal branding.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 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
Swedish Hare: Might have more information available in Swedish under the name Sverigehare .  Not to be confused with Lepus timidus which is referred to as the Swedish hare in some sources.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Sweden .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this breed may actually exist, but this search fails to find anything usable, in Swedish (which I read) or in anything else.  If you do find a Swedish source which looks usable, I'll look it over for you.  But right now this is a clear Delete, perhaps TooSoon, who knows.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:53, 15 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
Cizario da Costa: Subject earned two caps for the Guinea-Bissau national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable   -- Devoke water 09:39, 29 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
Azzouz Kara: BLPPROD was removed without making any effort to establish that WP:SPORTCRIT could be met.  The best coverage available is a cup match preview in La Provence that is not close to in-depth.  There is other routine coverage available, but nothing that suggests SIGCOV exists.  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and France .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 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
St David's Prep: The references are all primary, brief mentions, or self-published.  I did find an article in the local paper about a school concert in 1935 , but although this is a non-trivial mention of the school it is routine and run-of-the-mill information.  There are or have been at least four other schools called St David's Preparatory, in Huddersfield, Didsbury, Naas and Farnborough, which makes searching more difficult.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per nom.  Permastub since 2007, because there doesn't seem to be anything notable about it.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:11, 29 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
Old Streetonians Rugby Football Club: Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  The Telegraph article brings some coverage, but not enough for a GNG pass.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 18:02, 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
Kamal Kalai: NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:23, 19 May 2023 (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/2023 May 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not finding indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO .  Fails WP:NPOL too.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Elected as a Member of the District council doesn't fulfils WP:NPOL .  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:36, 22 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
Screw (card game): It is entirely uncited despite being created over 15 years ago and I can find no mention of it either at pagat.com or in comprehensive sources like David Parlett 's Penguin Book of Card Games (2008).  Even an Internet search produced nothing concrete other than clones of this page.  Unless someone can produce WP:RS to support it, it seems a clear candidate for deletion.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 10:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:BEFORE comes up empty.  Possibly WP:OR .  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:20, 22 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
Sole Satisfier: The page was heavily purged of uncited material in a series of edits last year by Horse Eye's Back , and now consists only of two quotations from saints.  For a Christian theological notion, it noticeably draws from Catholic sources ( WP:CONTENTFORK ?), and reads as an essay or collection of related saintly writings rather than an encyclopaedic entry.  About a dozen pages linked to it in "See also" until I removed these links last week; they were almost universally articles of saints with no clear connection to "Sole satisfier".  The only mainspace page that now links here is Spiritual communion , which exhibits the same problems regarding essay-style writing and sayings-collection.  Motivation: I am concerned that the article might never be able to meet an encyclopaedic standard.  A Google search returns very few results; "sole satisfier" is not even mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoted in the article.   I am happy to be corrected by someone better acquainted with theology, but I do not think the term "sole satisfier" is something that has any academic foundation, and is therefore in the "language" of theology.   The article reads like an attempt to define, coin, and discuss a specific theological notion that is not supported in reliable, independent sources; therefore, the article will violate WP:OR for as long as sources do not use this particular term.   Nevertheless, the notion could be incorporated into existing articles; Desire#Religion might serve particularly well for a redirect as an alternative to deletion, and there is some relevance for Argument from desire .  (This is my first AfD nomination, so I am sorry if I am doing anything wrong!)  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity .  Owen× ☎ 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  After looking a bit, I agree with the nominator; this simply isn't discussed as a concept in any sources.  Original research.  — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (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 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The term "Sole Satisfier" seems more like an urban terminology from the last few decades of modern  music - such as Sister Souljah.  Made-up term, even.  I have never, ever heard this term, or one even similar, tied to any Christian faith.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:00, 23 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
1 Special Training Unit: I was unable to find any relevant sources.  Charsaddian ( talk ) 20:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Africa .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that provide any detail on this unit.  I would also draw editors' attention to WP:MILUNIT which provides some general guidance for the notability of military units.  This one does not appear to meet the suggestion of "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations".  My understanding is that it is a physical training unit.  It could be covered in some detail in an article about the parent formation, which may have been a training establishment or directorate.  Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me ) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This seems to be linked to Danie Craven , maybe some biographies of his life could be helpful sources.  Park3r ( talk ) 02:02, 26 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
European Society of Aesthetic Gynecology: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Medicine ,  and England .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 13 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!  03:40, 20 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