hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster: Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , Ireland ,  and England .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I have to agree with the nom.  I do not see how WP:NRIVALRY is met.  While there is coverage of other rivalries with Leinster (eg: "Leinster drawn with fierce rivals La Rochelle" "Rivalries we Love"  (..)  "Stade Toulousain v Leinster Rugby" "Penalties Give Leinster The Edge Over Rivals Munster" , etc) the only material coverage of a "rivalry" with Leicester, that I can find, is this primary source .  Which was published the same week as this article.  Straying from an objective review of the volume/reliability/relevance/applicability of sources, from a subjective point-of-view, these sides have only met 15 times in nearly 30 years.  Which is well short of the 100+ games with provincial rivals (like Munster) and, per nom, in the same region as the other AfD discussions listed.  While the sources just about cover the WP:NOTSTATS content in the article, I note that none of them appear to describe those games as involving "rivals".  Not seeing how WP:NRIVALRY (incl WP:NOTSTATS , WP:NLIST or WP:GNG ) is met here....  Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:16, 29 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 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NRIVALRY .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:33, 4 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
KNLA-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Found some coverage in [ [27] ].  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gonna be an odd one here.  KNLA and KNET go together; they channel share and have been associated for 20+ years.  There is one other article on them, "Success Story: Low-Power Target on Hispanics - World TV's Four Outlets Play to Central Americans in Los Angeles Market" (TelevisionWeek 4/28/03), but it provides little useful content other than to say KNET was religious and KNLA was home shopping.  The programming on these stations now is not likely to stay: its owner is selling it to Daystar in a deal filed just last week.  Daystar would probably replace all the existing programming on this mux.  Six months from now, there'd be an obvious redirect target, the Daystar station list.  Right now, I'm not sure.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to Sammi Brie : So, if it does go to Daystar , KOCE-TV doesn't have to air it anymore, freeing up one of its subchannels for other programming.  That could end the conflict between Daystar and KOCE...  Interesting.  Mer764Wiki ( talk ) 11:17, 12 January 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!  23:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - inadequate sourcing, but the station’s history is fascinating and prima facie notable.  Llajwa ( talk ) 17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom, fails GNG and NCORP.  Source in the article is primary and found in BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 15:09, 1 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
Shocker Fest International Film Festival: Fails WP:GNG .  TLA (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and California .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:07, 14 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
Creative economy in South Korea: The article is discussing a piece of obscure jargon at length, with numerous POV, style, prose, and sourcing issues.  If this isn't deleted, it needs to be significantly cut down.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and South Korea .  toobigtokale ( talk ) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most of the refs are doubled or tripled (author probably didn't know citation formatting), and they don't link to anything or give titles.  They are mostly written/created by the same few people.  Also, prose is very essay-ish.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  16:19, 10 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
Alejandro Ospina: Some of the sources read more like a promo than as actual reporting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero ( talk • contribs ) 03:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Fashion , Sexuality and gender , Internet ,  and Colombia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:47, 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
Linkme: Fails WP:NCORP .  US-Verified ( talk ) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I read about 10 sources, and they all have problems.  Some are way too positive and hypey, some are just flat out a sales pitch, and some are quite obviously written by a "guest contributor" or say things like "The content featured in this article is brand produced.".  Unable to find any independent content, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not meet GNG -- DH22 Mim ( talk ) 08:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP .  The references are all typical PR.  scope_creep Talk 08:28, 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
Randy Padilla: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  Best I can find is this .  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:55, 25 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
Suraj Musah: Best source found is Ghana Web , which is a transfer rumour and, on its own, not enough to meet the above guidelines, which require multiple sources showing significant coverage of the subject.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Ghana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Spiderone , I have been working on the deletion of some of these articles and have nominated a couple of them for deletion under speedy deletion (G7) based on the reason below.  I am the author of this article.  The rules for the creation of articles have changed in a while.  At the time of creating this article, the Ghana Premier League was one of the league on the wikipedia (Wikiproject Football) notability page for leagues.  Which meant plays who had made their debuts in the Ghana Premier League qualified the Notability criteria and therefore articles could be created about them.  This has changed.  As the author I request for the deletion of this article since it doesn't meet the Football notability and also doesn't meet the general notability criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampimd ( talk • contribs ) Many thanks for your comment and for taking the situation well.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:01, 13 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
Greenville County Republican Party: Coverage is from local media, not helpful in establishing notability per WP:AUD .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Organizations , Politics ,  and South Carolina .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:13, 15 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
Hatem Abdulrahman: Vyvagaba ( talk ) 11:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Arab Emirates .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article uses a player profile on a football league website, and the rest of the sources are sports blogs.  Vyvagaba ( talk ) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:22, 24 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
Katherine Crothall: Seems to fail WP:GNG .  TLA (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Health and fitness , Science , Engineering , Medicine , California , Pennsylvania ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Run of the mill businessperson.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC .  Edwardx ( talk ) 10:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Being a CEO, founding companies, having patents, and winning what looks like non-notable awards, doesn't grant automatic notability.  Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF either.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 18:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete subject does not have significant coverage.  Only a few citations in Google Scholar, so WP:NACADEMIC is not met.  Fails notability.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:24, 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
Diving Equipment and Marketing Association: No significant coverage by independent secondary sources.  Routine announcements in trade/industry sources announcing shows or briefly mentioning the CEO.  WP:SIRS not met.  Article creator was blocked for promotional username possibly related to article title.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 24 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
Woodgrove Retirement Village: zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - nothing of any notability here.  Sources are purely promotional and simple listings .  No RSs.  Searches found nothing better.  Paid for editing ?  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional).  But Zoglophie , please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion.  It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified.  You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion.  This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it.  Elemimele ( talk ) 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved".  But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites.  zoglophie •talk• 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] fair enough!  Elemimele ( talk ) 14:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Really just a housing development, we delete those all the time.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Housing developments are essentially businesses rather than municipalities, and need to pass WP:NBUSINESS .  We have no evidence that this one does.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No indication of notability, sources are nothing more than directory listings and churnalism.  -- Kinu t / c 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources present or found to establish notability.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence it passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG more broadly, or WP:NBUSINESS .  Specifically, it fails my longstanding standards for estates of this type , because its far too small to be per se notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:52, 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
Aircoasters: I'm not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt ( talk ) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unable to satisfy even the bare minimum of pictures or discussion to meet WP:V , let alone notability BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Might as well not exist for all the sources that are available (none).  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:22, 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
Steven Holker: All I found were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) and this confirms he was out of the sport by 2016.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and England .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided : Should be expanded as a Super League player, but if refererences can't be found then there is insufficient coverage to keep the article.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 09:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'll be a little blunt here but "neutral" or "undecided" comments don't help closers come to a closure decision.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:45, 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
List of video games with restricted online functionality: This article included "This knowledge is important when buying used / old games and emphasizes the dependency on online services the publisher provides." in the body from its fifth edit until I removed it just now, indicating a WP:USEFUL -type (<- essay) misunderstanding of notability.  Also, "restricted online functionality" can mean anything from "the leaderboards don't work" to "the game is completely gone".  QuietCicada - Talk 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada - Talk 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not even sure what the scope is here.  What is meant by "restricted"?  TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Gaming servers shut down as time passes, this really isn't notable.  I wouldn't expect a 15 yr old PS3 game to still work online.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE .  If this somehow survives this AFD, a rename discussion needs to happen.  I think this article is trying to document games with online components that, over time, were made inactive/unplayable.  The fact that I (and others) are unsure is a pretty strong argument that its current title is terrible.  Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:USEFUL , and WP:NOTCATALOGUE .  Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 10:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:28, 19 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
Oxford Hustlers: No obvious WP:ATD .  This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - doesn't meet GNG.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:19, 25 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
Paul Sizer: I don't think the subject is notable.  Just i yaya 06:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Bands and musicians , Comics and animation ,  and Michigan .  Just i yaya 06:29, 14 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