hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Erddy Titaley: The best that I could find were squad listings in Bola and Indosport .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 22:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —Absolutely nothing of substance here, much less WP:SIGCOV .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all above.  There is no information available about him at all.  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 16:04, 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
KHBA-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Washington .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:26, 24 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!  04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this article should have never been created to begin with.  Catfurball ( talk ) 15:15, 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
Global Excellence Awards: The award is created by a marketing agency for seemingly promotional purposes only, and the basis for awarding process is unclear.  Additionally, the major contributor has removed the paid editing and advert maintenance tags and has yet to address the UPE notice given.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India .  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Global Excellence Awards has successfully completed 3 editions and 4th edition is in process.  Its an initiative by Brand Empower to honour and encourage artists, entrepreneurs and organisations for their outstanding work in their own respective fields.  On the website brandempower.org and globalexcellenceawards.org, process of nomination to selection has been already mentioned.  There is no thing thats unclear.  On social media pages of brandempower, all the activities are getting published.  Big media covering this award and big celebs attend this award.  This page has not been created for paid advertising, but solely to display awards received by popular celebs for their outstanding work.  People are searching GEA awarding list on Google and this award has good significance and deserves to be on wikipedia.  Shouryasbaghel ( talk ) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your contributions [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] suggest that you are working for Delhi-based companies named Webpulse Solution Pvt.  Ltd and Brand Empower Pvt Ltd, the latter being the creator of this award.  You have been given an undisclosed paid editing notice on your userpage which you have yet to address.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You made a page on Hindi Wikipedia titled hi:राहुल रंजन सिंह (Rahul Ranjan Singh), the founder of both companies, suggesting you are in fact being paid to edit Wikipedia.  I am doubtful of your claim that this page “has not been created for paid advertising”.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  ManaliJain ( talk ) 19:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  In light of the above, this is G11 territory.  // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 18 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
Nail Alishov: Best I can find is a squad list mention as an unused sub in Report.az and a quote from him at the bottom of Matc.az .  The latter is not significant because there is no meaningful third-party analysis of what Alishov said.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Azerbaijan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are database records (ref + el) and BEFORE showed nothing from 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 01:28, 6 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
Standard telegraph level: I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions.  Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft delete - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here.  There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors.  I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:44, 11 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
Samantha King: She does have a couple of Canadian Country Music Award nominations in down-the-line categories like Independent Female Artist of the Year (which I had to correct, because the article was falsely claiming she had been nominated for the topline Female Artist of the Year, as in "Shania Twain/Terri Clark/Tenille Townes level superstar") and Rising Star, so a neutrally-written and properly sourced article about her would be fine -- but this, as written, is promotionally toned and poorly sourced, and has been tagged for that problem for over a decade without resolution.  The article additionally claimed a Juno Award nomination that I have been completely unable to verify, as her name fails to show up even in the Junos' own self-published database of its past winners and nominees -- I've already removed that due to its unverifiability, but it still leaves a lot of article's other claims also questionable in the absence of better sourcing than this.  But apart from the nominal verification of the CCMA nominations themselves, this is otherwise referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, one glancing namecheck of her existence in a source that isn't about her, one source that completely fails to support the claim being cited to it (it's "sourcing" a concert , but is about a hockey game ), and just one piece of coverage about her in the weekly hyperlocal of a suburb of her own hometown.  I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can salvage it with a neutral writing tone and better sourcing, but particularly in light of the {{ tone }} template having been on the article for 13 years without repair, it's time to fix it or lose it.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 10 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
Shenin Hoseyn: From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran .  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 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!  07:13, 24 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
Jennifer M. Adams: As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG -worthy sourcing shown at all.  Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams , before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , England , Maryland , North Carolina ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing.  They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background).  I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability.  She fails WP:GNG .  Grab Up - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:20, 19 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
2017–18 Israeli Noar Premier League: Nothing to suggest that a season of a youth football league is notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football ,  and Israel .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 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
Jonatan Oliveira: In my opinion, being ranked #9 on one website in Kickboxing, a loss in Boxing with no other notable acheivements and mostly passing mentions/event results is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:NKICK .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brazil .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:40, 19 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!  23:13, 23 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
William John Corbet: Escaping the German occupation of Guernsey in the Second World War is not especially notable and does not make him, as his article claims, a "World War II hero".  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Single source, OR, fails WP:GNG.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:18, 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
NLS Debate: Additionally, the article has pretty significant issues, including random sentences from unrelated articles.  Tejas Subramaniam ( talk ) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not seeing much coverage in English, which I believe is the language of the competition.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:53, 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
St. Ignatius High School Gumla: No reliable sources found despite Google search including news, books, and news archive.  StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Jharkhand .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 17 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!  04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only primary sources provided.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 09:51, 26 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
Shah Sharabeel: And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source , so at most, they count as one source.  And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this , but nothing else.  Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS.  So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR?  Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me.  This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP?  No offense to the creator of this page, of course but  only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete First of all Saqib , i am not a UPE, and don't get personal everytime by calling this term without any evidence as admin has already warned you multiple times.  Secondly if it is a case of UPE, then why the article is stub and with that much less data.  You can check history i never added material or promotional tone after creation.  As to why i voted delete, I saw his work in a theatre and created his page after checking coverage in RS.  Anyways, Did'nt even remembered him since then.  Although he still has a coverage on reliable sources but i dont think theatre actor can have a wikipidea article & i am not a UPE who will be affected after deletion.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 I didn't explicitly call you or anyone a UPE.  I simply mentioned that only a UPE might create a BLP for a ROTM director, so no need to stress about it.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- lack of sigcov of more than one notable work.  Happy to change my vote if someone discovers a ref that give a good description of his directing or acting.  BTW, the article doesn't even say that he is an actor, so I deleted the assertion from the IB and categories.  Is he? If so, the article should say so.  And the refs should go immediately after the fact that they are verifying, rather than all lumped together. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 03:36, 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: delete