hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Worldwide Records: Most of the currently cited sources aren't reliable, and those that are reliable only provide passing mention or provide routine coverage .  GSS 💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article was created and mostly edited by now-blocked socks of  Alizulfikarzahedi, along with a few anonymous users who could potentially be the same individuals evading blocks.  I haven't observed any substantial edits by others, so this could be eligible for deletion under WP:G5 .  GSS 💬 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , India ,  and Bihar .  GSS 💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Appears to be spam.  Too much press release and unreliable sources used as source.  @T.C.G. [talk] 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Mostly unreliable sources, sources with link errors and somewhat reliable source there is like BBC, it has no depth coverage about the company or its background.  It is more about who the company signed or dealt with.  Per nom, the page is also eligible for deletion per WP:G5 .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:43, 24 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
Lisa Winning: Lacking WP:SIGCOV about her.  Interviews where she is quoted talking about her product is not WP:SIGCOV about her.  Possible self promotion.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The app or the company is potentially notable, but the individual doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASIC .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Also, an editor recently added content including references to the article, an evaluation of sources would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete Purely promotional with primary sourcing and reads like a resume.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 18:09, 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
Minami Aizawa: Sourcing is all red or orange linked per sourcebot and I can't find mentions of her in rS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Can't find significant sources to pass notability bar.  Noneate ( talk ) 14:55, 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
The Cooters: FMSky ( talk ) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - could not find any evidence of any WP:GNG -satisfying coverage, music charting,  or anyone referring to them as "critically acclaimed" as the article baselessly asserts.  Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also strongly disagree with the 2009 AFD consensus.  They argued that releasing 2 albums on a major record label was enough, but none of any of the labels they've been signed to are anyways near major level.  I can't believe no one called them on that...though the standards were way more lax back then.  Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The band has an album article at The Moon Will Rise Again , which will have to be addressed if the main article is deleted.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I had checked there to see if it had any coverage that helped notability, which it didn't, so I'm fine with that being WP:A9 'd personally.  Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is unfortunate because the band has a long history and a surprisingly large number of albums, though they are mostly self-released.  They are almost purely local and probably have a loyal fan base in their town, but the only coverage I can find is friendly interviews in local entertainment papers: [3] , [4] , [5] .  Most of the article's claims about their success and influence cannot be backed up.  It is also important to reiterate that notability rules were softer when this band survived an AfD back in 2009.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:06, 18 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
Peace gaming: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 07:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Violates WP:NOTNEO .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEO .  Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO .  Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 11:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEO .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:25, 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
Gregorio Maria Paone: Only one local source covers him directly, and the small amount of articles he's written do not seem enough to meet WP:NPROF .  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bands and musicians .  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Searches on Google, Italian news sites, and JSTOR turn up nothing aside from what appears already in this article.  Does not meet the criteria of WP:BASIC , WP:ANYBIO , and WP:MUSICBIO .  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 00:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per forementioned reason above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:38, 30 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
Michael S. Bogren: No objections here for a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies , where he is already listed.  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Michigan .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete I agree that this does not meet GNG guidelines and this entry would certainly not stand the test of time.  Delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:27, 20 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
José Silva (parapsychologist): "Sources" findagrave, silvanow and mindvalley are not RSs.  Ixocactus ( talk ) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions .  Ixocactus ( talk ) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  We had that article before, with sources just as bad, and it was deleted.  -- Hob Gadling ( talk ) 04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find a previous AFD. Could you provide a link? L iz Read! Talk! 05:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find it either. But I distinctly remember such an article. I checked German Wikipedia but cannot find it there either. Sorry. -- Hob Gadling ( talk ) 09:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , maybe revisit later.  I dispute the claim that he was a parapsychologist.  It appears his works were later redefined as paranormal-like to tap that more lucrative commercial market.  One of his own lecture ads from 1987: "Mr. Silva who has no formal education, never went to school to learn,..." .  There are plenty of self-taught geniuses in history, yes, but they have more notability and a wider impact.  He appears to have been more of an entrepreneur and lecturer.  The article on the Silva Method is sparse at present, which includes a bio section.  If notability ever improves, such as a movie made of his life with wide coverage, then revisit as a stand-alone bio, but not as a parapsychologist, imo.  5Q5 | ✉ 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:25, 4 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
Kim Bok-man: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Arguably fails at WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Can't find sigcov, not enough games to pass threshold of notability.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Devokewater | (tαlk) 21:27, 6 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
List of Indian Premier League players: Most teams have their own articles for players e.g. List of Chennai Super Kings cricketers , there is no reason why we need this article which is a less easy to understand version of that data, when the team lists are perfectly fine, and in line with cricketer lists we have for other non-IPL cricket teams.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Cricket , Lists ,  and India .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom and undue length Googleguy007 ( talk ) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom, we already have lists for cricketers by cricket teams.  Delete it per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST .  RoboCric ( talk ) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is why we have team categories, folks.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Simply too big to be reasonable.  Individual lists for teams (which are fine) already exist, so this list is major overkill.  StickyWicket ( talk ) 18:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We have categories for players from separate teams, a list like this is going to be enormous with the number of players who've played in the competition.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Already too long and can only increase.  Need to have more selective criteria than this.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:08, 22 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
Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009): This is a non-notable event.  The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is.  At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews.  Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no news articles whatsoever about this.  My only hesitation would be in deleting the liquefaction bit, which if I am to believe this article is the event's one claim to fame in scientific circles.   However, I don't think liquefaction actually has a minimum magnitude at which it can occur, so I personally suspect there's not going to be anything merge-  or keep- worthy there when someone finds the time to double-check the papers cited.  Even if the liquefaction bit ends up actually being a unique thing worth mentioning, it's probably better off being merged somewhere else.  -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 12:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For California, this is not a notable earthquake as indicated by the lack of news articles.  Even the liquefaction has occurred with other, more notable earthquakes.  That said, I would suggest merging the "Tectonic setting" of thie article with the "Geology" section of Owens Valley .  I can find one dedicated source and several more references but I didn't check if they establish GNG.  Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk ) 19:16, 30 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
Andy Daro: Possible attempt at self-promotion.  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Italy , Connecticut , Florida ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles .  As for the tone, most people would blush if they had a Wikipedia article about them that promotional.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.  Luke Bennecke - another article by the same author.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Fury (2nd nomination) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources in article fail to prove notability (no sigcov/not independent), and a google search shows nothing that would meet WP:NBIO .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable and Wikipedia is not a CV.  Kierzek ( talk ) 03:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - non-notable subject.  Very little coverage exists.  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage found for this individual, does appear PROMO.  Gsearch is largely social media or legal filings.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promotional bio that fails all notability standards.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete smells like poorly executed WP:UPE to me.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete like do I have a choice?  This article is certainly promotional, large parts of the article are unsourced, and very little coverage is included.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looking like snowball.  Promotional and the organization you "started" is not even mentioned in the Compass article -- VViking Talk Edits 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:AVALANCHE .  — siro χ o 16:15, 27 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
St. Paul's Church,Banda: No WP:RS provided.  Fails per WP:GNG .  Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Religion .  Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable.  My search came up empty after refining it to  "St. Paul's Church"+"Banda"+"Uttar Pradesh".  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - can't find anything other than a Facebook page for the church.  If this is somehow kept, it should be moved to St. Paul's Church, Banda Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MILL .  Neither the building nor the congregation has any particular claim to notability.  St Anselm ( talk ) 15:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above and nom.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:11, 17 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
Mirianée Zaragoza: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Puerto Rico .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  Locating sources may be complicated by some official sources, such as FPF , referring to her as "Mirianée Hernandez".  - Socccc ( talk ) 16:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More non-SIGCOV mentions in PR when also searching for Nené Zaragoza ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).  - Socccc ( talk ) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Paywalled Record article may mention her but doesn't appear to be SIGCOV.  Contract renewal press release and non-IS republication by Portuguese public broadcasting .  PR student media source with quotes about Maritimo.  2018 PR PotY nomination.  - Socccc ( talk ) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG ; I can't find any Portuguese- or Spanish-language sources that cover the subject in-depth.  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:51, 1 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
CP 009 Évidemment: As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to have notability claims (charting, awards, coverage and analysis about the song in media, etc.) and reliable sourcing to support that -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and no referencing is cited at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Belgium ,  and France .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is about all I can find [29] , a brief mention of the new song coming out.  RTBF is the Belgian national broadcaster.  Few other sources found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not appear to have charted, no mentions in media.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:44, 28 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