hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
BetterMed : Sources are press releases and mentions.  CNN coverage is not in-depth.  My WP:BEFORE did not show a presence of NCORP-compliant sourcing.  There is seemingly in-depth coverage in the Grit Daily article , but that web page strongly resembles sponsored content and is, in terms of form, a press-release/interview hybrid with the claims obviously being sourced to the company with no outside, journalistic, analysis, scrutiny or contextualization; includes tell-tale promotional verbiage such as What’s next for BetterMed?  .  — Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine .  — Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not a PR repository.  I concur with the nominator's evaluation of the available sources.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : CNN is a trivial paragraph mention.  Rest of the sourcing used is PR.  I can't find anything about this organization, there was a string of medical clinics with the same name that was bought out.  I don't think it's related to this; rest is entirely PR items that I find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Advert for NN company posing as article.  -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 21:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The company doesn't have that much coverage in major outlets but it is very notable.  The CNN source alone should be enough to consider it notable.  CNN is a reliable source as per Wikipedia guidelines.  Evanzoe ( talk ) 10:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was already addressed: CNN coverage is not in-depth .  It is not in-depth because it only contains one short paragraph about the subject.  There's a second paragraph but it is a quote of someone from the company, and that doesn't count.  Coverage must he in-depth for a source to count toward notability.  There must be multiple such sources, not just one, and there are none.  If there is no significant coverage in multiole sources about a company, it is not notable.  So it can't be "very notable".  It can't be non-notable due to insufficient coverage and very notable at the same time.  "Notability" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia.  — Alalch E. 12:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  Given that notability is not ruled out, but there are problems with WP:SIGCOV.  Also, the page is new.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:53, 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
Voice of Hope : Not finding much on a google search.  UPE creator.  Valereee ( talk ) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas .  Valereee ( talk ) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft space, mostly unreferenced and not up to article quality standards.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:OR from their own web pages, nothing found in my usual lists of Texas sourcing.  The IP that contributed to the article is the church's IP.  [38] Craigpanza only edited this page, plus one edit to add this page to Index of Texas-related articles .  A web search returns nothing but their own postings, such as Facebook , which is average for that geographic area.  Like most churches, they have a local outreach program for various things, but that in and of itself is average for probably the majority of religion-based organizations.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:46, 2 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
List of Danish conductors : I can find no other list of conductors which is nation-specific.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Music ,  and Denmark .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as superfluous.  Doesn't add anything (other than redlinks) that Category:Danish conductors (music) doesn't already provide.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per my previous PROD.  Uffda608 ( talk ) 09:29, 28 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
Almost Friday Media : The only reference I can find that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this (note 3, and it's an edge case for notability since it seems to come from VinePair's WP:TRADES coverage.).  All other sources in this article, as well as WP:BEFORE sources offering significant coverage, are press releases or sponsored content once you click through, even the Yahoo Finance pieces.  Other references on this page are to LinkedIn, the subject's own website or other primary/user-generated sources.  One item of significant coverage in an independent, secondary, reliable source is not enough; we need multiple.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Popular culture ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agree with the Nom.  We are nowhere near CORPDEPTH with the sources in the article or elsewhere.  My searches find very little at all, and nothing useful.  This fails WP:NCORP .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : According to my check, I agree with the nominator.  WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require multiple in-depth coverages, but I found only one in-depth coverage.  Other sources are just press releases and promotional materials.  The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  Grab Up - Talk 08:38, 24 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
Labor Order (Azerbaijan) : It's one of countless awards given out by the Azerbaijan government.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 31 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Azerbaijan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sounds unreasonable to me to delete the article just because because it's one of the awards established by the Azerbaijani government .  The civil and military awards of the republic are, of course, established by them.  It's one of the highest decorations in the country — Toghrul R ( t ) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject fairly pass GNG.  -- Surə 🗯 16:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Would like to see one to two more editors contribute.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  Just because an award is from a government does not make it automatically notable.  An annoucement that an award has been awarded is obviously doesno't establish notability.  Sources in the article and BEFORE fail WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Ping me if independent reliable sources with SIGCOV about the award are found.  Keep votes provided no sources showing notability.  // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 21 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
Poojya Dr. Sharanabasawappa Appaji : Remsense 诉 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Karnataka .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability not found.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Does not appear to meet WP:GNG ; definitely does not meet WP:NPROF .  Qflib ( talk ) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  Appears to be a promo bio by a follower.  Article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - possible G11 candidate.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SPAM , WP:NOT , and WP:SNOW , and WP:SALT it.  In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a page about your spiritual guide .  We are a non-sectarian charity, period.  19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 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
Screen Machine Industries : Zero non-promotional references.  Maintenance tag since 2013.  No significant coverage on Google at all.  Qcne (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for PROMO.  All I find are in industry trade publications ( [5] ), which don't help notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NCORP .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:14, 23 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
Dan Russell-Pinson : Source eval: Comments Source Interview  1.  "One-Man Development Firm Finds Sweet Spot in Educational Apps".  www.gamesandlearning.org.  Retrieved 2023-05-23.  App review, no SIGCOV about subject  2. ^ Hodgepodgedad (2012-02-02).  "Stack the States App Review".  Your BEST Homeschool.  Retrieved 2023-05-23.  One sentence about subject.  3. ^ Ravindranath, Mohana (2012-09-05).  "App developers wary of children's online privacy law".  Washington Post.  ISSN 0190-8286.  Retrieved 2023-05-23.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 21:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Businesspeople , Video games ,  and North Carolina .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable, undersourced BLP.  The entire music section is unsourced.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Mostly unsourced, questionable sources for a biographical article, minimal relevance.  -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 13:29, 6 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
Coreeda : Most of the citations fail verification.  Prod was contested with reasoning that significant coverage exists in books, good faith search found that is not the case.  Spagooder ( talk ) 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts , Wrestling ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage to show WP notability.   The art isn't even mentioned in a number of the sources.   There are links to organizations with ties to the art, a single mention in an article about a wrestler who once studied coreeda, links to blogs and the Coreeda Association of Australia, and a link to a self-published book--but no reliably sourced significant independent coverage of the actual art.  Papaursa ( talk ) 00:01, 20 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
Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund : There isn't significant coverage in reliable, independent sources , as Kuwait does not have a relationship with the IMF that is worthy of an article.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business , Economics ,  and Asia .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : nothing here notable enough to merge into International Monetary Fund , and the title is too unlikely a search term for a redirect.  Owen× ☎ 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above nothing notable here.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:38, 21 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
Michael Wallis-Brown : I reviewed all sources in this WP:REFBOMB and found no WP:SIGCOV in any of them or in BEFORE search; all coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTION .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is a South African business executive resume and nothing more.  The entire article tells us his education background, and all the corporate positions he has held, but nothing about any accomplishments while holding those positions.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 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
Ziyad Al-Mutairi : My Arabic searches failed to yield anything about a footballer of this name and only gave me some coverage on a fencer of the same name.  No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 14:33, 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
Taj Anwar : The only source identified so far that discusses Anwar in detail is the self-published iUniverse Rebel Moms book, which is clearly not a reliable source per WP:RSSELF .  My WP:BEFORE search found only a handful of non-independent interviews in various outlets as well as a little bit of Atlanta Voice coverage that doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV .  That's not enough for notability under WP:BASIC or the GNG , in my view.  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - definitely approaching notability, but most existing coverage is brief mentions or of marginal reliability.  Does not meet any current notability standard.  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NBASIC .  I did not find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the subject.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:40, 4 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
Dingtone : Fails GNG, NCORP.  BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Products , Software ,  and California .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing special about it to differentiate it from any other VoIP app; fails NCORP .  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 18:20, 11 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
Hoipolloi : I see some references which seem to mostly focus on Shôn Dale-Jones so unless anyone can find something that meets the notability standards, I suggest delete and/or merge.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , United Kingdom ,  and Wales .  JMWt ( talk ) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:PROMO .  Most of the refs (mostly dead now) were to their own webpage.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:59, 23 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
Security Compass : Specifically lacking reliable sources.  Brandon ( talk ) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing ,  and Canada .  Brandon ( talk ) 22:03, 7 July 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!  21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 10:00, 16 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