hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
KDVD-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona .  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yeah, probably the right call now.  While older than many non-notable diginet coatracks, it did not come on air until December 2000 and was not originally broadcasting to the Phoenix area.  If it did, it probably broadcast Hispanic Television Network (HTVN), as that's who owned it, or possibly the English-language American Independent Network.  Newspaper from Globe is not available.  I figure I'll put this likely fact here, too; it's not named for a disc format.  The station took its present call sign shortly after one of the brothers that owned it, David Primm, died in 2021.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Another remnant of the looser "notability standards" we had c.  2009 .  There's not much else that can be done when an all-national-programming station doesn't get, or at least has easily-accessible, significant coverage .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:sigcov Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 08:22, 22 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
Jorge Isasi: The two references are partial player stats.  After searching, could not locate sufficient reliablesources.  Created on 21 May 2012 and was PROD 27 May 2012 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Paraguay .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  All that came up in searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per JTtheOG .  The article does not even provide basic information about the player.  Svartner ( talk ) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:25, 27 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
Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist): Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works) or local newspapers familiar with Lam.  Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR , (3) may be possible, though no evidence of widespread coverage in reviews.  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A major contributor to the article, @ Y69up02 , may have a connection to the subject.  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Illinois ,  and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This person has written books that were published by indie publishers and one won an indie book award.  He was once given a few minutes of air time on PBS.  None of the sources or books reviews are of the level that we would usually consider to confer notability.  Given the number of book titles published yearly (over 300,000 in the US) mere authorship is not enough to establish notability.  Publishing by major publishers and reviews in national sources, with a bonus for making a best-seller list, is needed.  Lamona ( talk ) 02:26, 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
Nicolas Lopez (Bahamian footballer): Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Bahamas .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability and simply fails WP:GNG .  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 20:01, 12 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
Untouched (Angel): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid.  In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.  Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM .  Source in article is an interview and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Let me know if something is found.  // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per Timothy's reasoning.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 6 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 Prime Show with Aiman: None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV.  References themselves are not IS RS for notability.  BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings.  // Timothy :: talk 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 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!  06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i revised the articles & prevent treat speedy deletion article 103.119.62.56 ( talk ) 14:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't delete this article, I feel very sad for the another person created this article from the threat of quick deletion.  103.119.62.56 ( talk ) 14:50, 3 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 ) 07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Jean Houymet: I don't even know for sure if he was a farmer, or just someone who owned land.  The provided references seem to indicate that the only research done into this individual was done by his family members; any non-relations giving reference are from primary documents directly connected to the subject.  I will admit that I make this AFD after taking a hatchet to the article (see Special:Permalink/1222951438 for the previous version) but there is no usable content in the older version either (most of it is editorialising, OR , or speculation).  Primefac ( talk ) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , France ,  and Canada .  Primefac ( talk ) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A family biography project is not suitable for wikipedia.  Interesting local history, but not meeting inclusion criteria here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:38, 16 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
Jacquin Jansen: I found a handful of sentences of coverage here , which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  09:28, 10 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
Ryan McCready: Fails WP:NPOL .  Media coverage is mostly local and routine - for example, coverage that he changed parties or chose not to seek re-election.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians ,  and Northern Ireland .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:politician as he was only a councillor and has no other claims to fame.  — Iadmc ♫ talk 14:57, 12 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
Comparison of browser synchronizers: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browser synchronization .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If "browser synchronization" is not a notable subject then there's no need for this list, and as nom pointed out, it's likely outdated and obsolete anyway.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Mooonswimmer 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The technology is effectively a checkmark for most browsers now with few requiring third-party tools to sync settings any longer, and these are for the most part depreciated tools.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I take issue with the claim that Browser synchronization is not a notable subject.  The cited discussion had input from one other editor and they advocated a merge, not the redirect that happened.  Here are a few recent sources establishing notability of the topic: [16] ], [17] , [18] .  The fact that the article is out of date is not a reason to delete it.  If a list article is not desireable here, the good content in the list could be merged into a restored Browser synchronization article.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I see the article was actually created to compare standalone software in 2006 when there was no sync feature in browsers but it's evolved into comparing browser features now.  The thing is, it's a standard feature now and pretty much same in all browsers and there is not much to compare anymore anyway, it looks useless now.  Tehonk ( talk ) 03:18, 24 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
Julien Hasler: The LFV source is not independent as it is the website of the Liechtenstein FA.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I had prodded the article for the same reason, and the Prod was removed with the addition of the source from the national football organisation, which isn't independent of course.  Playing for the national team isn't sufficient as a claim to notability when that doesn't generate the necessary coverage in reliable independent sources, and this is one of these countries where it is easier to get into the national team than to get into a good professional team.  Fram ( talk ) 14:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Europe .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Liechtensteiner Vaterland has a paywalled article that looks like SIGCOV here .  Lie-zeit has a couple of sentences about him in a match summary here .  I don't know if these are enough, but it looks somewhat close.  Jogurney ( talk ) 12:52, 27 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 19:04, 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
Mitch Cahalane: All I really found were transactional announcements ( 2015 , 2017 ).  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided : Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him.  Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC .  Unable to find anything other than routine coverage.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Could not find any independent reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 06:47, 30 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
Kim Song-chol (footballer): Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and North Korea .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 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
You Call This Music?! Volume 2: The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found.  No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable.  Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music ,  and California .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and lack of sources; arguments from the old AfD no longer hold up.  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album.  Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : "It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review.  That's not gonna do it.  So, can we merge to Volume 1?  No article.  That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2.  I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright.  Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability.  Well, let's just merge it to the record label, then.  Guess not that, either.  Lubal ( talk ) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination, as subject crashingly fails WP:GNG .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:04, 28 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
Vendor-neutral data centre: As the info here is completely unsourced it might not be right to merge it to the data center article.  Your thoughts?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:01, 13 October 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!  06:28, 20 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
All in the Silence: See deletion discussions: for artist , and album Loved One .  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan .  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – non–notable album (does not meet WP:NALBUM ) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was deleted via AFD. -- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏ (ring-ring) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the exact same reasons as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentoverse .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not notable album produced by not notable artist.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 22:12, 30 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
JC Kritzinger: JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Few bits and pieces here and there with some of them having him as the main subject, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not meet GNG/SNG and I cannot find any sources on this man outside of databases.  Possible redirect to one his teams but I am not sure about that.  P,TO 19104 ( talk ) ( contribs ) 22:51, 17 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