hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of Alamo Bowl broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS , barring five Wikipedia articles; two duplicate source is about the BCS game itself, not just this.  One is about the Bowl games itself, one is about the coverage of the Bowl games and the rest about the game itself with the goverage being given a passing mention.  None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this.  All the others are unsourced.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists ,  and Texas .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN .  WP:NOTTVGUIDE —"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content.  Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per above nom.  I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list.  Editor who created it is now a blocked sock.  — Maile ( talk ) 19:50, 10 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
Amaron : A minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity ,  and Latter Day Saints .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If we have decided that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day does not apply to Mormonism, chipping away at little bits of Mormonism is a bit pointless.  Here are some references that I found using Google Books which the nominator ought to have found while doing WP:BEFORE : Reference 1 , Reference 2 , Reference 3 .  Лисан аль-Гаиб ( talk ) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Лисан аль-Гаиб : and before making this comment you should have checked whether the linked sources contain significant independent coverage...  They do not appear to.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :* Delete As the above users sources demonstrate, this person is only mentioned in-universe, such as the devotionals linked The Trash Compactor ( talk ) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile ( talk ) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not finding the sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would suggest that the topic is suitable for a stand-alone wikipedia page.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:25, 29 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!  18:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable and as per the nom.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per filer & Horse Eye's Back's reasonings.  If appropriate, merge to a suitable (and notable) article.  Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 16:00, 30 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
East Meath : It seems to be defined within the page as the area of County Meath within the Louth (Dáil constituency) .  That wouldn't in itself satisfy notability (aside from the fact that this area is set to be reduced to the Drogheda suburbs part only), as that's a common feature of many counties.  It does have a profile on the Meath County Council website .  A Google search gives some results, such as the Protect East Meath lobby group, and East Meath United.  However, contrast that with a search for West Cork , with 6,360,000 results, including newspaper coverage.  The sources on the page or elsewhere don't suggest to me that East Meath is a generally notable distinction within the county, as opposed to what coverage might be given in Drogheda , Laytown–Bettystown–Mornington–Donacarney , or County Meath .  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 6 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!  07:17, 11 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!  06:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - sorry I did not see the AfD sooner, and for that matter, that I did not catch this article.  This is largely an "invented topic" and the sources do not support it as a separate entity.  East Meath historically was largely what is now called County Meath, and this other definition requires OR.  The idea could be briefly discussed in the Co.  Meath article, but I'd question even that.  SeoR ( talk ) 21:49, 18 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
Premalatha Vijayakanth : Fails WP:NPOL .  News coverage seems to primarily be about her husband, and the party in the context of the upcoming election.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India ,  and Tamil Nadu .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nomination.  Non-elected politician without constitutional office, fails WP:NPOL .  General Secretary role in an unrepresented party is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article.  Sk1728 ( talk ) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per WP:NPOL .  Notable largely for being the wife of a notable person.  - Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL .   -- Devoke water 01:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails NPOL.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this wikipage has just been redirected to Premallatha Vijayakant this page needs to be deleted too   -- Devoke water 16:44, 31 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
Myanmar–Spain relations : Level of trade is extremely low.  Most of their interactions are between the EU and Myanmar rather than Spain and Myanmar.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Myanmar ,  and Spain .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  No WP:SIGCOV , so there shouldn't be an article.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 15:54, 22 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
BK Saturnus : Modest history peaking on the 5th tier.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:46, 12 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
W34EY-D : While the subject did survive a 2020 AfD, it was under a looser set of notability criteria for television stations than we have today, and the bulk AfD it survived last year was more about some other stations in it that were notable than this one itself.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A run-of-the-mill 3ABN station turned a run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate station with no local content, undoubtedly without any significant coverage at any time.  The first nomination was in that "transition" period where the walls were (very) slowly starting to close in on the overpresumption of notability for broadcast stations, but before the 2021 RfC that established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:28, 5 February 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!  08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Sergem : Kazamzam ( talk ) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  Kazamzam ( talk ) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sergem is a Dairy product, though not sure if the current page is accurate as the ref I have added shows it is a buttermilk [1] [2] [3] Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 17:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your response.  I am unable to view the page for the first reference, and I have my doubts about the reliability of both The Northeast Today as a site and Cheese for Dummies .  The third reference only mentions sergem and Tibet once in a table - I don't think that meets the criteria for a quality reference to establish notability or determine the nature of the topic itself.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 21:16, 18 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!  22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Pure original work - that's also quite lazy.  The links invoked above are inadequate: two passing mentions in books for dummies and about another subject altogether, plus a write-up about Chhurpi , which they misspell.  There's very little here, practically nothing.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:20, 26 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
Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili : I can find Arriyadiyah but it's only a trivial mention.  No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 20 April 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) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV in a league that gets decent coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article about an unverifiable content drawn to a footballer who doesn't meet our general entry guidelines.  Per WP:BEFORE, as usual, were databases soccer way, transfer..., etc.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  01:37, 24 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
Tom Rogan : -- Beland ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and News media .  Beland ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Politics , England ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Lack of independent coverage other than possibly regarding one single event.  Persingo ( talk ) 01:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject, a blogger, fails WP:GNG .  Most sources are primary, e.g. this or routine listings.  Some are even without pulse , e.g. this . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:10, 24 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
Uzair Shah : One source for all 3 claims; two sentences; four images; zero facial indicia of significance or importance.  This looks like a vanity piece.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Journalism ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Good catch! this is an AUTOBIO created by a SPA Zahirdaud24 ( talk · contribs ), clearly fails to meet WP:N --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This fresh catch belongs to Crosji , who brought this tuna to WP:BLPN , unfortunately the wrong venue. I just canned and shipped it here. Thanks, Crosji! JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tasted fantastic! Appreciate the tuna, thanks @ Crosji : — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Agree. If there are more photos than actual written information in the article then it probably isn't noteworthy in the first place. Photos are probably to make the subject seem more notable than they actually are. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Agree. The brevity of the article precludes any critique regarding its quality. -- Crosji ( talk ) 17:36, 30 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
Solanum verrogeneum : We discussed this article a few months back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive75#Solanum_verrogeneum .  The name appears on the website that was used as a source in the article, and we confirmed that the plant described on the website is "certainly Solanum quitoense ", but there is no reason for Wikipedia to maintain a bogus name that appeared in a not-very reliable source.  Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete : Since it's not a published name, and the source cited to justify the article is confusing it with another species, then we should delete it. -- Mr Fink ( talk ) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per referenced discussion. Mbdfar ( talk ) 00:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator and the WT:PLANTS discussion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Sustainability at the University of British Columbia : Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Canada .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO.  sourcing is primary, a 404 link (?) and sites that talk about the school in passing.  Could perhaps merge a line or two into the University article, but this reads as a PR piece.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ESSAY .  This is not notable as a standalone topic or as a search term for a redirect.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 07:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.  Fey1995 ( talk ) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , sources are primary and I do not see its viability as a stand alone article even if there are secondary sources to support it.  Piscili ( talk ) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom  and above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:55, 17 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
Ivanova and Olga Tamarin : It was tagged for speedy deletion but I think it deserves the consideration that an AFD can bring rather than a quick admin evaluation.  Please review the talk page for the ongoing discussion.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If participants here believe it to be an obvious hoax, well, we can always close this early with a speedy deletion decision.  L iz Read!  Talk!  08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia .  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Thank you for nominating this.  I removed the PROD because it seemed to me worth discussing and, therefore, not an obvious hoax.  This story seems to have crept it's way into some otherwise respectable newspapers, probably to fill a space.  Ideally there'd be reliable sources saying it isn't true and it's just trash journalism – but that is maybe too much to hope for.  My reason for deletion isn't based, so far as I know, on any policies or guidelines but simply because I don't like the article and think we'd be better off without it.  Thincat ( talk ) 09:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -  Although the article is related to Russia, I could not find any mentions of these characters in Russian on Google Books.  I seriously doubt its contents because Ivanova (Иванова) is not even a proper name but surname with a female ending.  ThegaBolt ( talk ) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete You'd expect lots of reliable sources for something like this.  Instead nada.  Unless someone can come up with reliable sources we all missed we should assume that this is a hoax – and not a notable one.  -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 02:54, 1 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
Khingz : Promotional piece showing some local fame.  Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and Washington .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All we have are reviews of albums, some of them not even exclusively about our subject's creations.  Nothing on Khingz that would support independent notability .  Subject fails WP:GNG and, by a mile, WP:NCREATIVE .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:12, 15 August 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!  19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - does not meet the criteria of notability , per the comments made above.  W.G.J. ( talk ) 21:23, 22 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