hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Karo people (East Africa): The article consists of original research advocating for the 'Karo' name over Bari.  I can find no reference for its claims.  The three references provided were all published years before the events described in the article were alleged to have taken place.  I was able to retrieve the full text of two of them (Seligman and Yunis) and found that they did not contain the word 'Karo' at all.  Confusingly, there does appear to be a Karo ethnic group in East Africa: the Karo people of Ethiopia , but they are not the Karo (Bari) people described here.  ATDT ( talk ) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  ATDT ( talk ) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa , Democratic Republic of the Congo , Sudan ,  and Uganda .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 3 March 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!  06:39, 10 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
Johanna Purdy: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Canada .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, this fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Please ping me if significant coverage is found.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 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!  02:34, 24 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!  04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am certain that this article didn't meet WP:GNG , WP:SPORTSCRIT and sources.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:06, 31 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
MSPoweruser: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi.  I'll make it more objective then.  But will this alone help meeting the WP:NWEB criteria?  DGital ( talk ) 11:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not notable, per searches.  This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website.  Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the "our brands" section here [31] which lists a couple of titles but not this one.  If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Sirfurboy🏄 .  Will adding the publication to the Reflector Media's brands page change your opinion?  DGital ( talk ) 11:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am afraid not, no.  It would not be an independent source.  I merely drew attention to that lack to point out that even the publisher does not provide information from which a page could be created.  But to be notable for an article, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.  At this stage, none appear to exist.  If you are in a position where you could change Reflector media's coverage of this on their web page then it is likely that you would have an undisclosed conflict of interest.  See WP:COI .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per user above, not notable to be on this project.  Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 13:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Technology ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not notable standalone.  IgelRM ( talk ) 20:38, 23 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
Emmanuella adaolisa: Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria .  Reading Beans ( talk ) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no real claim of notability, just a bit of transient media gawping.  Mccapra ( talk ) 05:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  SPA-created article that makes no claim of notability.  128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 20:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There is no need for this article.  Easily fails WP:GNG .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:00, 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
Papaya CMS: Has only had a single source (its GitHub repo, which doesn't contribute to notability at all) since its creation in 2010.  The previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, including a comment that the German article has sufficient sources to establish notability.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  Greenman ( talk ) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Couldn't find many sources that weren't first-party or simply "how many websites use...".  I'd say it fails WP:GNG Lewcm Talk to me!  23:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – could not locate sources that would make this notable.  -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, concerning the "keep" votes in the first nomination, I don't think any of the German sources on Google Scholar gived significant coverage to Papaya CMS. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 23:26, 25 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
List of Texas Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS , all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404.  That source that is not a press release is a dead link.  All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this.  None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this.  All the others are unsourced.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists ,  and Texas .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:LISTN is not met as these broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN .  This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:39, 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
Mister Nicaragua: There was no consensus at the AfD 3 months ago, mainly because of low participation.  After 14 years in CAT:NN , I hope we can now get a good discussion and resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Beauty pageants ,  and Nicaragua .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Definitely doesn't fit WP:Notability guidelines, and I'm pretty generous about it.  Just not enough coverage about it, and not much potential to be informative for readers.  Professor Penguino ( talk ) 05:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:49, 25 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
Martin Ferreira: JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:37, 17 May 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 ) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's a few bits out there, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:22, 18 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
Pia Mellody: Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Potentially passes WP:NAUTHOR but can't find reviews.  Fails WP:BIO .  scope_creep Talk 10:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Medicine ,  and Arizona .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:42, 12 January 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!  08:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This in Texas Monthly [67] and two book reviews in Publishers Weekly [68] .  First isn't enough for GNG or BLP, 2nd isn't enough for AUTHOR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Maybe the clinic has notability - she does not seem to meet requirements.  She is an author and was involved in a semi-public scandal, but does not have significant coverage.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:03, 28 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
Steven Cerio: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New York .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE and is an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO , with most of  the unreferenced text added by the subject of the article, added on 28 March 2014.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Steven_Cerio&oldid=601622625 WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:10, 21 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
Butler–Drake football rivalry: Joeykai ( talk ) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Iowa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG.  We have far too many of these synthetic rivalry articles...  SportingFlyer T · C 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV about the rivalry itself.  The current sources is essentially a compilation of reports of non-notable individual games and database sources glued together here on Wikipedia in a way not done by any outside sources.  User:Let'srun 18:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the above.  As far as I can tell, all of the sourcing available for this matchup amounts to primary sources, statistical databases, and run-of-the-mill sports reporting of individual games and seasons that lacks the requisite overview-level coverage of the matchup/rivalry as a whole cohesive topic needed to establish notability.  Left guide ( talk ) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not finding WP:SIGCOV , i.e., in-depth coverage about this as a notable rivalry.  What we have is two FCS programs that  (a) meet regularly because they're in the same conference, and  (b) share the same team nickname 'Bulldogs'.   What we don't have is the needed SIGCOV or other objective indicia of a notable rivalry.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:51, 1 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
Germany–Switzerland football rivalry: There are a few brief mentions, but I don't think there's enough for a standalone article here.  An alternative to deletion could be a selective merge to History of the Germany national football team , though most content here is already covered and cited there.  Complex / Rational 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Germany ,  and Switzerland .  Owen× ☎ 18:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In more or less every sport the German–Swiss rivalry is the most important rivalry for Switzerland and also very important for Germany.  As of new as today there is a new article of this rivalry in the three main team sports in Switzerland.  Also article from 2020 .  🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 20:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No significant rivalry, there is total disparity between the teams.  Switzerland appears to have much more rivalry with Serbia, for example.  Svartner ( talk ) 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a direct translation from a German article so I cannot change the actual information.  KatieMowat ( talk ) 09:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ KatieMowat : As long as you provide attribution for the translated version, which you did on the talk page, there are no restrictions to editing the English article in order to "stay true" to its German counterpart.  It's quite normal for different-language articles about the same subject to have significantly different content, and inclusion guidelines also vary across different Wikipedias.  Complex / Rational 14:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as unproven.  If exists or existed, our coverage should have started elsewhere.  gidonb ( talk ) 22:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Zafar Mehmood Mughal: Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG criteria.  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Delete per nom MNewnham ( talk ) 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per MNewnham.  Nothing appears in WP:BEFORE search.  41.99.221.13 ( talk ) 20:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 25 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
Edwin Sass: The most I was able to find was this profile.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:02, 10 April 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 ) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete There is this , but it would be nice to see more to suggest a full WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:43, 10 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
Sina Alam: I see it was deleted from fawiki numerous times as not notable [11] [12] [13] and even salted at some point: [14] , so if people who speaks this language natively and who can evaluate the sources better think he's not notable, I think he's not notable.  Tehonk ( talk ) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Iran .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete Per WP:G5 .  TornadoLGS ( talk ) 02:11, 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
John Cornfield: Could not find SIGCOV about him, though there are mentions of him in various sources.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music ,  and United Kingdom .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If deleted, this category should also be deleted: Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:03, 6 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!  06:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : All mentions in RS are of this person in relation to the musician they've worked with [48] .  Nothing that helps establish notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 13 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
Sorcerer (operating system): Anwon ( talk ) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - cant find anything on web or google scholar either.  Bluethricecreamman ( talk ) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article is unsourced, and makes no claim of importance or significance.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unable to find adequate sourcing for this Linux Distro, doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:20, 13 July 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