hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Airbiquity : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , Software , Transportation ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company, [1] [2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s.  (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know).  I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks.  – Tera tix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Cook, John (21 October 2005).  "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth".  Seattle Post-Intelligencer .  ^ Cook, John (22 January 2008).  "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals".  Seattle Post-Intelligencer .  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such.  Nothing to establish notability.  A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared.  Desertarun ( talk ) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look for sources that weren't in the article?  – Tera tix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 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!  02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better.  扱.  し.  侍.  ( talk ) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect , perhaps to connected car as an AtD.  I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process.  I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun.  I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field.  The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process.  BusterD ( talk ) 13:51, 14 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: no consensus
Miss Iraq in America : -- فيصل ( talk ) 16:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 4 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!  07:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Both Rappler and Albawaba seem to be broadly considered reliable sources, based on a search of the reliable source noticeboard archives.  I'm less confident about Pukmedia but don't see an obvious reason to consider it unreliable.  Overall, this doesn't look like a very major event, but it does appear to have sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources, even just looking at English-language ones. — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:26, 18 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: no consensus
Chun Ge : Meets the criteria of Delete policy 6.  Neologisms, it is recommended to delete.  SU YIQI ( talk ) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Popular culture , Internet ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chun Ge participants: Piotrus ( talk · contribs ), Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ), Harrz ( talk · contribs ), and The person who loves reading ( talk · contribs ).  Cunard ( talk ) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I suggested this to be deleted a few months back, saying sourcing is poor and article is confusing.  Folks said 'sources exist in Chinese', without citing any or improving the article.  At best I think we should move it to a draftspace or userspace if someone wants to work on this; otherwise, deleting this is no big loss, given how poorly written this is - it can be recreated from scratch if someone cares, with proper sources ( WP:TNT ) later.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think anything has really changed since the last nomination.  There's extensive sourcing at zh:春哥 which seems to be enough to meet GNG.  As I said last time, the article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 23:30, 14 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!  07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This nickname that turned into an Internet meme or kuso meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline as demonstrated by the numerous sources at zh:春哥 such as 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 .  The article has room for improvement, but like Mx.  Granger, I also think it is a good start and don't think TNT applies.  The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved.  Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion , this should be done rather than deleting the page.  Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required : Wikipedia is a work in progress .  Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles .  Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.  Cunard ( talk ) 11:26, 3 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: no consensus
Jason Benade : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  I am only seeing passing mentions in match reports, lineup changes, etc. 1 , 2 and 3 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is difficult to find information about domestic rugby in Namibia hence the shortness of the article.  However Jason Benade has featured for the national side of Namibia numerous times including at the World Cup, the biggest stage in the sport.  Curtis82 ( talk ) 20:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I think there's enough here, if Namibian offline sourcing is included for a weak keep here, especially given he is featuring in a current World Cup.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:12, 18 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!  00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has featured in the World Cup multiple times as said above.  It’s a matter of improving since there are multiple sources for the WC.  I don’t know enough about the domestic leagues to say whether or not there is significant coverage there but there will be for the national side.  REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 14:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If these sources have in-depth coverage of the subject, I will happily withdraw the nomination.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 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: no consensus
Herwig Zahorka : Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , Czech Republic ,  and Germany .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- 5 books, 250 articles and a decoration by Germany suggest notability.   I agree COI is an issue, but should not be decisive.   This makes me wonder how comprehensive nom's investigation was.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to change my position but I didn't think quantity of work determined if a subject is notable.  Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Article is poorly-written, but can be cleaned up if anyone is available to do so.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Changing my position based on the changes that have been made to the article.  I'd like to see more references in the article before changing to keep.  Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 19:50, 27 December 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!  03:22, 28 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: no consensus
Francois Esterhuyzen : All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , South Africa ,  and Russia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I think there's enough in the Russian coverage to suggest a weak keep for WP:GNG .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:59, 29 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!  22:17, 4 June 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!  21:25, 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: no consensus
Brokenteeth : A quick search on Naver didn't return anything helpful with Google/Bing even worse.  I also couldn't find the subject charting on the Circle Chart , South Korean national chart.  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and South Korea .  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , There are enough reliable sources in the document ( Brooklyn Vegan , Kyunghyang Shinmun , Sputnikmusic, Visla, etc...), he was on a show on EBS , a major broadcaster in South Korea, this meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) .  올해의수상자 ( talk ) 15:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The two Korean sources identified by sourcebot as green (khan.co.kr and Newsis are trivial mentions), the rest aren't much help.  I'd suspect there would be more coverage of his TV show, but Korean sourcing isn't my expertise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following the 2017 Discussion , Sputnikmusic's "staff reviews" were determined to be reliable sources, and we can confirm that reviews from source is also staff review.  Also, Visla Magazine is also an online magazine that is officially established as a company, and I think the official article here is also a reliable source.  올해의수상자 ( talk ) 06:49, 22 September 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!  01:11, 21 September 2023 (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!  02:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added two reliable sources to this article, is it not enough?  Then I'll search for it more.  The paragraph of a reliable sources is in the policy of WP:MN 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 11:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage such as Sputnik Music, Brooklyn Vegan and Visla Magazine that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:42, 5 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: no consensus
Thomas Koorilos : Google search (string:"thomas koorilos") turns up no usable sources what-so-ever, mainly profiles and name-drops.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP is, however, relevant to what sort of content the article can have.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 15 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!  22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Though a weak keep per WP:SIGCOV slight, the subject meets WP:SNG for religious related.  A metropolitan Bishop is notable and there is possibility of sources about him.  Clean up is not deletion pls!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Bahawalnagar incident : Should be either merged or deleted.  Event doesn't require its own article.  Wikibear47 ( talk ) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 ( talk ) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Police ,  and Punjab .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence.  Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete That was a minor clash, with no casualty.  Resolve by both parties on the same day.  You may move the content in Bahawalnagar , Bahawalnagar District or the Controversies section in Punjab Police (Pakistan) .  You can also consider List of cases of law enforcement brutality in Pakistan . -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.  Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG , WP:EVENT , This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that received a brief wave of coverage with no fatalities.  Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [22] , [23] .  War Wounded ( talk ) 02:26, 25 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: no consensus
Simon Hansford : Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 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!  04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry.  The rest is about his education and  family background.  — Maile ( talk ) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination.  All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership.  hSproulesLane ( talk ) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No inherent notability in his position.  Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO ?  LibStar ( talk ) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO , which you have failed to do.  LibStar ( talk ) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for adding sources.  The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV .  The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV.  LibStar ( talk ) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source.  LibStar ( talk ) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus