hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Károly Konstantin Habsburg: WP:NOTINHERITED , WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian.  D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 13:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Austria ,  and Hungary .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:13, 28 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
The Published Reporter: Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Websites ,  and Delaware .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion.  Fishnagles ( talk ) 01:18, 15 April 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!  07:44, 21 April 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!  05:53, 28 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
ITV Specials: Unrelated ITV programmes are lumped together under a "ITV specials" banner that doesn't exist.  The subject as a group fails GNG.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television ,  and England .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found about the topic as a group, except the usual databases and sites that mirror Wikipedia.   Article has extremely poor sourcing, with almost all sources to a single special.   List is too long to navigate easily; might be ok as a category but not like this.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am not seeing anything to suggest that what is included here is ever routinely grouped together.  Dunarc ( talk ) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't think this is a banner, branding, or grouping that is actually used by anybody, much less ITV itself.  (It also arbitrarily suggests that there were no specials of any kind on ITV before 2000, which is highly unlikely—if not outright inaccurate—for a network that has existed since 1955.)  On top of that, is there any real reason why the six main "types" or "series" of music specials aired on ITV are only listed here, and not in the list of television programmes broadcast by ITV ?  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 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
Larceny (Scheme implementation): Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A niche software without much recognition.  killer bee 12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 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
Dominant CZ: The page was obviously written as self-promotion.  After restructuring in 2021 and renaming to DOMINANT Genetika s.r.o., it has only 10-19 employees (according to the Business Register).  The page is said to have been translated from cswiki, but it has already been deleted there as well.  FromCzech ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An article here gives a more detailed history of the firm's several restructurings (prior to the most recent restructuring mentioned in the nomination), indicating Dominant CZ was founded in 1998.  AllyD ( talk ) 07:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article on a family firm, consisting mainly of a product list referenced to their own site.  Searches find mainly routine coverage (company listings, distribution partners, trade shows); the Redcomb Genetics item linked above is the best available but falls short of demonstrating notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: I can't find anything about this company outside of routine coverage.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:19, 20 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
Order of Accendo: The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [11] .  Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing.  Викидим ( talk ) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Veverve ( talk ) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sources are adequate and article was recently restored via RfD.  Skyerise ( talk ) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment is it just me, or is this in effect an edit war in progress that has spilled over into AfD?  Jclemens ( talk ) 23:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a redirect since 2015 that was just restored today.  Unless you are referring to Veverve 's nomination of 23 Discordian redirects to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes.  Skyerise ( talk ) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger ).  Shapeyness ( talk ) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , perhaps speedily, as a hoax.  Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention "Order of Accendo".  It seems to be completely made up.  Jfire ( talk ) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic.  Psychastes ( talk ) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Its been on the cat:nn since time began and not really worked.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 09:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was going to suggest redirected to Discordianism until I noticed from the discussion there is a longer history here.  The doubts about the verifiability that an "Order of Accendo" exists is convincing enough for me.  Ben Azura ( talk ) 00:14, 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
Priya Hays: Potentially notable.  scope_creep Talk 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Biology , Medicine ,  and Women .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Our article explains that she moved from research science to teaching and communication early in her career, explaining the low h-index but also putting WP:PROF out of reach.  She has several published books but I didn't find any reviews that might give her notability through WP:AUTHOR .  And when the best source is a student-newspaper article about how litigious they think the subject is, available only through archived copies, WP:GNG also seems a stretch — it is an independent source with in-depth coverage of the subject, but of questionable reliability for its material, and not really the sort of thing you want to base an article on.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Low H index and only 137 academic citations.  I also agree with all that David Eppstein said.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per David Eppstein.There is nothing to suggest that the subject of the articles passes WP:NPROF.  Shoerack ( talk ) 13:13, 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
Politics & War: The sole source here is its own non-independent website, and my BEFORE mainly found user-generated context which aren't reliable.  This is almost an A7 but because the article is mainly about the game and not the website I don't think it unambiguously falls under web context, so am bringing it to AfD.  VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites .  VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Very clearly a non-notable browser game, I can't find any reliable source so fails WP:GNG .  An edge case regarding A7: since it's a browser game it does fall under the category of web content, but the claim of 6.5k weekly users plausibly counts as a credible claim of significance.  Either way, this should be deleted.  WJ94 ( talk ) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not demonstrate any evidence of notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete NO coverage at all for this game.  Delete for lack of sourcing, PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article self-evidently lacks the sources to justify general notability.  There is minor coverage providing more context to the game ( [13] [14] [15] ) but these fall short of establishing reliable or significant coverage.  Vrxces ( talk ) 12:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Looks like a promo.  Also, I left an Uw-coi alert on the author's Talk page.  Deckkohl ( talk ) 13:47, 20 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
Douglas Lucas: Fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO and WP:NMG .  WP:BEFORE search turned up many people with the same name, but not this person.  The MySpace link in the Infobox only leads to a collection of music tracks, with the rest of the page lacking content.  Geoff | Who, me?  04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unsourced BLP which should have been deleted long since.  Cabayi ( talk ) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails WP:MUSICBIO , unsourced BLP.  Spinixster (trout me!) 14:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Delete for all the reasons stated by other editors above.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 20:21, 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
88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery: PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge and Redirect to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery .  Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails general notability.  Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing more viewpoints as those editors advocating Deletion are relatively new or inexperienced.  Is there more support for a Merge or Redirection?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:26, 29 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
Freddy McKinney: This is the only notable coverage he has ever received.  This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E , and should be deleted.  wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (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/2024 May 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A burst of coverage in the last 10 days around his rescue of the family, but nothing outside that event found besides brief mentions in one or two articles for the last few years.  Likely PROMO, but nothing found for this youtuber.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , Environment , Internet ,  and Nebraska .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well, no, isn't there significant coverage of the subject here and here ?  If we're looking for a person to be notable, then the sources should have at least several paragraphs in reliable sources.  Here, McKinney isn't just notable for his rescue of a Texas family.  There's coverage of him before that as per above; I think that with the enough coverage provided in the article's reliable sources, McKinney should meet WP:GNG !  ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , ⛈️ ) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one is a bit local.  Hopefully someone here can provide the link to the relevant policy on these not counting towards GNG.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 03:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – independent significant coverage is limited to interviews from local media, with one of the sources linked above detailing McKinney as part of a broader story on storm chasers, and the other being an interview carried out by the news station partnering with them (which may very well be promotional), putting the significant coverage and independent prongs of WP:GNG into question.  These aren't much different than, say, local human-interest stories about a local restaurant owner, which would generally be insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines.  Not really any good targets for a merge, so deletion seems apt here.  — The Austin Man ( Talk ⬩ Edits ) 03:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete While I do know of him outside of the recent coverage burst, he honestly isn't very notable.  MemeGod . _.  ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 11:34, 21 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
Nike Mercurial Vapor: 2) Fails WP:GNG .  After removing a bunch of unreliable sources there are only four left and the four that are left I'm still iffy about.  I'm only on the fence with them because another editor found an editorial staff member on LinkedIn.  The sources left mostly detail product releases and that is it.  They do not provide in depth coverage of the product in and of itself.  A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS .  Pure garbage.  TarnishedPath talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Sports ,  and Football .  TarnishedPath talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic.  Giant Snowman 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, we need a Redirect to a target ARTICLE not a target Redirect.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was an article - redirected - now restored.  Giant Snowman 07:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line.  For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources.  From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here.  The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence.  The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD , but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable.  A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy : , can you sign your vote please.  TarnishedPath talk 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] done.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT .  Not needed, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:21, 25 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
SMA Negeri 5 Bandung: The articles on id-wiki is unsourced as well.  The article in id-wiki showed notable people that are alumni of this school, but such things didn't show notability to the school.  There are some passing mentions of the school - such as the school having events but it didn't show notability.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Indonesia .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 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
2023 Thatta accident: Onel 5969 TT me 15:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : This is too serious.  This can't fit into Wikipedia because it's not a newspaper .  CastJared ( talk ) 19:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sure, tragic, but fails WP:NOTNEWS .  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:51, 15 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
UWC United States Championship: The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  LM2000 ( talk ) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator and LM2000.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:29, 23 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