hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Episode 16: Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill ( talk ) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  JuniperChill ( talk ) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as bizarre disambiguation page.  Almost kind of funny but definitely should be deleted.  Dan • ✉ 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 18 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
Gitit (software): BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 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!  23:26, 26 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
Hanna Instruments: None of the sources here have any WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NORG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Technology , Italy , United States of America ,  and Rhode Island .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years and never been updated.  Refeences are woeful.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as self-generated news.  They are WP:SPS sources.  Fails WP:SIRS .  Coverage is woeful.  This is an old established company and there should be a really decent article on it, but its not this.  If there was references available to support they would be there.  scope_creep Talk 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria apply.  I agree with the above, current references fail NCORP and I can't locate anything that might be used.  There doesn't appear to be any WP:ATD either.  HighKing ++ 20:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - many reliable sources but each is short and usually references one product.  None meets our requirement for substantial coverage.  This is typical of analysis and test equipment companies -- they have wide fragmented product lines and don't get the coverage more focused companies get.  This company is also privately-held which reduces the coverage.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:25, 29 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
GRICES: I did search for additional sources to establish notability .  The two sources provided on the Talk page both failed verification.  Created on 25 September 2007 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Science , Technology ,  and Portugal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since there is no clear evidence of notability .  IP editor posted a two sources on the article talk page , but neither is usable.  Nothing relevant shows up on Google.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable per WP:GNG and it's not a surprise that no reliable sources available. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 13:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Yamara López: No indication of notability.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 22:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:37, 24 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
IC 3786: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as notability cannot be shown.  hamster717 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌 ) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : definitely not notable.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I am unable to find any other reliable sources.  ‹hamster717› ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌 ) 20:00, 14 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
Lanam, Indiana: I will begin by saying that none of the aerials give the slightest confidence that there was ever a settlement here: there's an isolated building shown on GMaps, but you don't have to go very far back before it's an unbroken expanse of forest.  So, we go to the topos.  When you get back a ways, they do show a "LANAM" label, but it's in the physical feature font, running at an angle.  And if you look around you'll see a lot of similar labels, many of them marking "ridges".  And indeed in searching I find a number references to "Lanam Ridge", including the road that runs though the area.  Apparently either the "ridge" part of the label either got lost or was for some reason omitted, and then some GNIS map reader missed the font clue and turned it into a "populated place".  There is a "Lanam Cemetery" a ways to the east, at least according to Find-a-Grave, but I can't find a connection of it to anything (which is pretty typical), and Lanam appears to be a common enough name that it accounts for most hits.  At any rate, if there was a Lanam town, it wasn't here.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator's research.  It looks like at one point there may have been a post office near the site named "Oak Farm" [15] , but I couldn't find any maps that mark the location as an actual town or settlement.  ╠╣uw [ talk ] 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The Locals know this as Lanam Ridge, and this should get moved there if not deleted.  This is a neighborhood of residents of the ridge.  I can't find any one article gives the nature of the place, except this [16] which is less specific than I would like.  But I do believe that this is just another neighborhood in Brown county.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:22, 17 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
PANIC at Multiverse High!: QuietCicada ( talk ) 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Well there are no sources to be found; Metacritic doesn't have any [39] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's a review at Softpedia ( [40] ), a situational source at WP:VG/S but I don't think it counts towards notability, and it wouldn't be enough even if it did.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 08:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete PC Gamer has almost no actual opinions about the game, with the RPS and Softpedia sources being the only ones that do.  This has swayed me towards deletion.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible to Merge some of this content this with publisher page DoubleBear Productions , given that article covers the game in summary.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 00:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be good if DoubleBear was notable.  That remains to be seen, and the article's sources don't support it.  It's possible that Dead State is the only notable thing related to them, which this has nothing to do with.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:12, 30 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
Corrie Erickson: Rejuvenating pin-ups in military aeroplanes, designing a city's logo, etc is all interesting but I can't see any significant coverage.  JohnmgKing ( talk ) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Minnesota .  JohnmgKing ( talk ) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One source talking about his tattoo art, nothing else.  Not seeing GNG here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find any coverage which was independent, significant, and reliable.  Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST .  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 19:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; sourcing insufficient.  Kablammo ( talk ) 12:25, 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
KELM-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:47, 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!  07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service.  There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 April 2024 (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 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as per Wcquidditch .  Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:56, 29 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
Reclaiming the Glory: Looks questionable.  UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports ,  and Wrestling .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Performing a proper WP:BEFORE finds enough passable sources to keep.  Best I can tell, was the momentary continuation of the National Wrestling Alliance during a contract dispute.  Certainly the article could use some improving but WP:DINC .  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources are there that show this passes WP:GNG ?  Saying sources exist is unhelpful, whereas listing a few is a lot more helpful.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 15:56, 2 July 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!  22:59, 6 July 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, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
List of Arabs: There are currently ~400 million Arabs in the world, many of whom are notable and have a page on Wikipedia.  This extremely incomplete list is way too broad, as it could potentially grow to millions of entries.  Broc ( talk ) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Ethnic groups , Lists ,  and Middle East .  Broc ( talk ) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Obviously far too broad to have as a main list, could be turned into a "Lists of" if appropriate.  Reywas92 Talk 15:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Reywas92 & Broc.  Vlaemink ( talk ) 18:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Too broad for Wikipedia.  Orientls ( talk ) 08:00, 26 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
One Gold Radio: I'm not even sure what this article is trying to say - the "2011 changes" section seems to be very obscure insider stuff.  I'm not seeing anything here to prove notability, and nothing is coming up on a search except for links back to this article and an unrelated internet radio station with the same name.  Flip Format ( talk ) 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Flip Format ( talk ) 20:59, 6 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!  20:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No evidence of notability I could find online.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NCORP , and the two sources given don't strike me as reliable .  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 05:01, 14 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
Dan Gore: Draftify if needed, but every youth player does not need a Wikipedia article before they gain significant coverage as senior players.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the previous two nominations of Dan Gore for deletion were about a 2000s-decade American sportsperson.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:GNG.  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:45, 15 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
Bulk bins: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (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 ) 17:28, 17 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
Namek (A fictional exoplanet of Dragon Ball): Purely a short description of a non notable fictional planet.  CoconutOctopus talk 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should keep that article, it's just a fictional exoplanet like the characters, and there a petition to change the name Kleper 22B to Namek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcygnus ( talk • contribs ) 15:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not remove the AFD message from the article regardless of your opinion on the nomination, thank you.  CoconutOctopus talk 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is an article that lacks citations and has an improbable title.  ― Susmuffin Talk 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not FANDOM.  Fictional articles must not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE information.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can not think of any good redirect targets but even then there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE and even then the title is to specific to be a viable search term.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:GNG.  Memer15151 Chat 20:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sources and no signs of notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : poorly cited, almost entirely in-universe perspective, and no sign of meeting the GNG.  – dudhhr talk contribs she her 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Clearly fails WP:GNG , and suggesting the import of the content to a fan wiki or site.  Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 07:00, 25 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
Campaign of Chlef (1679): Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Source eval: Comments Source Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details  1.  "Abu-'l-Qāsim Ibn-Aḥmad Ibn-Alī Ibn-Ibrahīm az- Zaiyānī et Octave Victor Houdas, Le Maroc de 1631 à 1812 extrait de l'ouvrage intitulé Ettordjemân elmoʻarib ʻan douel elmachriq ou ʻlmaghrib, Octave Victor Houdas, 1886".  archive.wikiwix.com.  Retrieved 2024-01-13.  Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Maximilien Antoine Cyprien Henri Poisson de La Martinière et Napoléon Lacroix, Documents pour servir à l'étude du Nord Ouest africain: Le sud-ouest algérien et les régions limitrophes.  Figuig.  L'oued Guir.  L'oued Saoura, Gouvernement général de l'Algérie, Service des affaires indigènes, 1896.  p. 36.  Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 3.  ^ Jump up to:a b "Comer Plummer III, Empire of Clay: The Reign of Moulay Ismail, Sultan of Morocco (1672-1727), Lulu Publishing Services, 2020".  archive.wikiwix.com.  p. 336.  Retrieved 2024-01-13.  No objection to a consensus merge or redirect, nothing here merits a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a translation, please adress this to the french wikipedia article.  ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ ( talk ) 09:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Algeria .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of in depth coverage in any sources.  Mccapra ( talk ) 15:44, 19 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