hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Nowe Ostrowy PKP: "PKP" stands for Polskie Koleje Państwowe and is the initials of Polish State Railways .  As can be confirmed from the satellite view, this is a railway spur/siding where it looks like coal is or was handled (note that Google Maps includes this as a place name , but they likely got that from scraping data from Wikipedia).  This is therefore just a railway facility.  This article was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago.  The location of the article is within Nowe Ostrowy , a village for which we already have an article.  A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish regulation of place-names .  A population of 40 people is given in the article, but no source is provided for it, and I cannot find any listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish GUS database where census data should be available for locations where it is counted.  TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION , WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:NOPAGE .  FOARP ( talk ) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pl interwiki, no evidence this PKP-related something has stand-alone notability.  TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per FOARP . Another bogus bot creation. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:44, 23 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
Akil N. Awan: Cordless Larry ( talk ) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  This is straight out of a resume, we have no information about the person, only a laundry list of things they've done.  PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if the article could use a rewrite, they meet NPROF C7 as "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."  See: Economist , Reuters , and Sydney MH , among others.  On the basis of passing the SNG, I vote keep .  BhamBoi ( talk ) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Throw in History Extra and NPR , and I think this is a keep on notability.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the sources BhamBoi brings to the table.  -- StellarNerd ( talk ) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Per the above, as well as the pretty reasonable citation rates for their published writings. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is a G11 resume. // Timothy :: talk 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  I don't buy the WP:NPROF C7 case -- he's consulted a few times, but I don't think it meets the "substantial impact" test.   In particular, the Sydney Morning Herald is a syndicated copy of the Reuters, and quite brief.   I would expect to find book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR , but none were apparent.   The best case for notability is with WP:NPROF C1.   I think that this subarea does not have such low citations, and that the citation record is below the impact we are looking for.   This all brings me to (weak) delete.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Coverage in independent sources isn't sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NBIO.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 7 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
2032 European Men's Handball Championship: Event is 8 years away Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete way WP:TOOSOON .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Боки ☎ ✎ 17:33, 29 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
WOH S279: SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom: no hits on Google Scholar ( [1] , [2] ) coverage is limited to databases etc. or Wikipedia forks/mirrors ( [3] , [4] , [5] ).  Fails WP:NASTRO .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, I guess.  Seems a pity; would be nice to have somewhere to transwiki this sort of thing.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:17, 26 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
Ward Thomas Removals: The FT article is an interview with the founder.  Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Note : I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There is also a 2013 Telegraph "SME Library" item [60] but is also more a profile piece about the company founder.  A firm going about its business but I am not seeing the claim to notability and the detailed coverage needed.  AllyD ( talk ) 21:03, 18 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
Mark Gazit: References on the article are either unreliable/primary or are about ThetaRay, not the subject of the article.  Brandon ( talk ) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Brandon ( talk ) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Can only find PR items about ThetaRay, nothing for this individual.  Not meeting notability for individuals or business.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 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
Numeer: The main notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but the referencing is entirely to primary sources , such as his music metaverifying itself on streaming platforms or iTunes or Genius, and/or unreliable celebrity gossip blogs like Celebuzz, which are not support for notability.  Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Poor unreliable sources on the page.  Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO and has no notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  Ciudatul ( talk ) 09:54, 18 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
Freshwater Christian College: Tacyarg ( talk ) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Australia .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having had a look at this, I agree that this article is not notable, so Delete .  Bduke ( talk ) 09:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it gets some very local coverage in the Cairns Post, but nothing to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete subject does not have enough coverage to demonstrate notability.  Bradelykooper ( talk ) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is what in the United States would be called a private school, parochial school , or independent school; it is not what we call a "college."  So WP:NSCHOOL and relevant, longstanding rules and essays apply.  I don't see any evidence of when this was founded, nor in any secondary sources, or more broadly significant coverage .  There is no evidence that this school has more than 500 students, or that it's over 100 years old, or grants an International Baccalaureate, or has 2 or more notable alumni, or has 1 or more notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports.  Thus this also fails my own standards for schools .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:43, 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
Is this music?: Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online.  Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Websites ,  and Scotland .  Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support .  Cfls ( talk ) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cfls why do you wish to have the article deleted?  Voting without a rationale is unhelpful .  Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are no reliable sources in the article.  I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase.  SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't appear to have any reliable, secondary coverage or meet WP:NMAG .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 20 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
Cat Swamp: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Providence, Rhode Island MNewnham ( talk ) 01:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Providence, Rhode Island after possibly draftifying.  I conducted some research on it and I believe this could warent its own article in the future per sources such as [12] [13] [14] [15] but the general lack of a suitable number of sources to develop the article makes me think it should be Deleted.  Thanks!  ZombiUwU ♥ ( 🌸 ~♥~ 📝 ) 23:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Complex / Rational 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it's not on the Providence page so a redirect may surprise people.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:32, 1 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
Outline of formal science: This imagined hierarchy of the sciences appears to originate wholly from wikipedia editors.  - car chasm ( talk ) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Mathematics .  - car chasm ( talk ) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists .  WJ94 ( talk ) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment "Formal" and "applied" are not antonyms.  There is precedent in philosophy, and in military circles, for treating concepts, methods, and algorithms that apply widely across multiple fields of science and engineering as part of formal science, e.g., Springer link , and its pdf .  Operations research , Cybernetics , Control theory , and Systems theory all fall into this category.  So the inclusion in this outline seems reasonable.  Part of the challenge is that "formal science" means different things in say mathematical culture (formal language vs semantic models) and military culture (formal method vs semantic applications).  That said, the nom is correct that the outline needs much netter sourcing to establish inclusion criteria and the hierarchy given.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete indiscriminate list of random things without recognizable real-world criteria Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  "Formal science" is a thing (surprise!), and logic, math, statistics, computer science, etc. come under its umbrella, but there's no need to list all the subfields of each one.  Formal science#Branches is sufficient.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:26, 16 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
Sunni Students Council: Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization.  Number of members is unsourced.  Icodense ( talk ) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Sk1728 ( talk ) 10:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination does not meet WP:GNG and does not have adequate in depth coverage.  Tame Rhino ( talk ) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MILL .  This is a youth organization of less than 4,000 members.  Zero evidence of passing WP:SIGCOV .  16:43, 30 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
FC Sparta Sollentuna: The article contains some very obscure "accomplishments" supported by primary sources, but the history of the club would not attract any significant, independent coverage as they played on the eighth and ninth tier.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —A ninth-tier team is not notable in any country and any sport.  And it will likely not get any meaningful non-local coverage unless it makes a massive, years-long run of promotions.  Is there an appropriate place to redirect?  If not, "Delete" is the only option.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 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
Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson: The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG -worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film.  The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the recording and Johnson were important at the time this was filmed.  As a former advisor to the CIA and government about Asian affairs, he was outspoken in books, TV interviews, and newspaper articles warning of the coming 9/11 attack, seeing it as "Blowback" to US policy - the name of his first book in the trilogy published before the terrorist attack.  He was also just as outspoken about the mistake it was for GW Bush to go into Iraq.  Johnson was prophetic - but that was then.  This talk was the culmination of his American Empire Project which reviewed the points in his three books on the topic, However, the talk itself is now available on YouTube, so, I agree to delete it - unless just being a page for a commercially released DVD is worthy of a page.  Ellis408 ( talk ) 23:52, 10 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!  22:30, 16 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!  23:00, 23 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