hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
FMUATW: The only source I can find that isn't a trivial mention of the song is this article which is less than 1000 characters long.  Would recommend a redirect to Brooke Candy discography .  pinktoebeans (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's not delete it!  There will be more articles coming out very soon since her album is getting released this year and she usually does interviews and track-by-track breakdowns of each song leading up to the release date.  If sources are the problem, I will update it as more come out!  BiggestBidder ( talk ) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews don't help with establishing notability as they are not independent of the artist, and as the song has already been released as a single, I am unsure as to whether there will be any more sources about the song itself when the album is released.  Notability is based on current sources and attention, not ones that may or may not exist in the future.  pinktoebeans (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The song was released 6months ago; I'm not sure what else can be added.  If it hasn't been covered since before the launch, I don't expect to find much at this point.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable song, does not appear to have charted and little to no critical coverage in RS.  Not much of anything found for coverage in my search.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete : The most-cited source in the article is the non-trivial one mentioned above, which the article makes good usage of, even while the article is short.  BiggestBidder ( talk ) 02:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per others.   There is no in-depth coverage by secondary independent RS about the song.  S0091 ( talk ) 17:59, 16 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
WDRF-LD: This article was tucked away enough that the failed bulk nomination from earlier this year actually overlooked this station, so this is somehow its first deletion nomination.  (I pretty much discovered this only in looking through the history of the article for same-market sister WDYH-LD —also up for deletion —and noticing that the creator wrote the lead for this article in that one as well.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per prior HC2 reasoning.  Obvious GNG fail.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and doubtful this station transmitted anything, even as a test.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Zero significant coverage in WP:RS .  Jacona ( talk ) 01:27, 22 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
José Alarcón (footballer): I can find no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and, at best, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON .  The best source found was One Football (translated) but it's mostly quotes directly from him and there is very little actual independent analysis.  If people are confident that he will be notable very soon then sending to draft could be considered but, since the article is older than 90 days, this would have to be as a result of an AfD per WP:DRAFTIFY (2d).  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Venezuela .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana: There is a Pine Grove Church shown on older maps, and its cemetery shows up on the most recent maps, but there's no sign of a settlement, and the label wanders around considerably before disappearing, suggesting that they didn't real know where to put it.  I don't think this is a real settlement.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found on this location; there are a few houses in the general area but geotag locates to a forest.   Existence of a post office does not establish notability as rural post offices in the United States were often private homes or farms, any place where mail could be dropped off.   Not notable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bienville Parish Resources and Facilities .  Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Public Works.  Planning Division.  1952.  p. 14.  Pine Grove Community, near Saline , settled in the 1830's by Thomas Zilks, had a school for many years.  The same building served as a church.  Coushatta and Monroe were nearest places that roads permitted them to trade with in earliest days.  Many families reside in this excellent farming community, today.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable, not even a settlement.  By the way, just before I retired, I spent time in Bienville Parish geological mapping with another geologist.  While studying the area of the Bienville salt dome, we used the Pine Grove Church at the coordinates given for "Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" as a landmark to cross-check our GPS in morning before starting work.  The Pine Grove Church is still alive, well, and active.  However, it is only one of many such churches unassociated with a hamlet, town, or other organized settlement.  The community consists of residences dispersed throughout the area along local roads.  Paul H. ( talk ) 01:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by WP:GEOLAND show by Uncle G's reference above बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to Delete based on Paul H. comment बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Natekarwada: I could not find any sources at all covering the building online (all hits appear to be wikis/travel websites of sorts).  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Left guide ( talk ) 00:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 20 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
Taisija Smirnova: NYC Guru ( talk ) 09:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO , with all sources being either statistics or passing mentions.  A PROD was contested.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Latvia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - according to the user page of the article creator, the creator is the head of marketing for the Latvian Football Federation, so we have WP:COI to think about here.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG ; only match reports and database entries are available.  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:55, 27 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
Lee Su-hwan (footballer): I can find two news articles about him in minor newspapers in Korean [57] and [58] , but that's it.  He seems to have only played in a handful of games.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea .  toobigtokale ( talk ) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG , poorly sourced.  Svartner ( talk ) 18:57, 22 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
Dustin Pead: .  "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Florida , Utah , Virginia ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that.  Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  User:Let'srun 01:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Citations are passing mentions and profiles.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG with only passing mentions and a story about his Halloween setup; this is not an elected office so NPOL doesnt apply.  -- hroest 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete besides some passing mentions, it lacks in-depth coverage.  - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 16:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Gem Tower Defense: The article contains map pages, WP:PRIMARY sources or blogs.  My searches haven't produced something more meaningful.  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 12:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 12:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems to exist, but that's about it - doesn't seem notable at all.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Got a brief mention in Europe in Joystick [26] and passing mention in Joker [27] .  Still far from the threshold of general notability.  Is already mentioned in the Tower defense article, which is as good as it probably gets.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 09:56, 17 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
Mysterious Team Bangladesh: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB .  The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information."  The article effectively has a single source.  And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking .  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  09:29, 10 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
List of top United States patent recipients: Referenced exclusively to annual datasheets from the USPTO, it adds zero value beyond the content of the references.  Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk ) 21:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:NOTDB and failing WP:NLIST for lack of secondary WP:SIGCOV (this has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ) and WP:DEPTH .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per @ Last1in , and per nom Cray04 ( talk ) 04:35, 3 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
The Confessionals: Vanity page for ancient web relic.  Solemn1 ( talk ) 19:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture , Social science , Internet , Websites , United States of America ,  and Ohio .  — Karnataka talk 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this 2021 ref https://thesophian.com/so-why-is-the-smith-confessional-still-popular-on-campus/ .  No strong opinion either way.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:11, 11 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!  19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps this innocuous bit of dryer lint of an idea will spark some inferno of Wiki politics, but I question whether I should have listed this article for Proposed Deletion to begin with.  Since Proposed Deletion results in a deletion if there are no objections, and there are no objections here, perhaps it should be deleted.  • the solemn one ( talk ) 23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's your call, • the solemn one , that's what some editors do, sometimes start with CSD, then PROD, then AFD.  It's not always appropriate but it happens.  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought that, since the article has now been nominated at AFD, it can't be listed for PROD?  • the solemn one ( talk ) 15:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right, if an article has been sent to AFD, it can't be PROD'd later because PRODs are for "uncontroversial deletions".  A deletion that goes through an AFD deletion discussion is not consider uncontroversial because it requires the participation of editors, the examination of sources, often debate among editors.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:59, 16 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
Brigitte Secard: Eddie891 Talk Work 14:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Eddie891 Talk Work 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I cast a large net for sources on EBSCO, Newsbank, and Newspapers.com.  She comes up in a number of passing US newspaper mentions as "She's hosting a book signing" with zero commentary about herself, basically just advertisements for her appearances.  She also appears as a passing mention in this article about how she lobbied the local arts district in her town to paint some stairs ( [38] ).  A clear ! delete.  Nomader ( talk ) 15:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find any sources other than those already discussed.  (Which is a shame, because I really wanted to find out what she hoped to accomplish with the lions.)  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as promo.  Large blocks of unsourced text and flowery wording, I can't find much of anything about this individual.  The name is too common to find anything for her alone.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since the text is nothing more than a promotional piece of work, with a sprinkle of vanity prose .  Whence notability?  Nowhere.  It certainly does not grow in monoculture trees.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 18:10, 5 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
Alberto Vazquez (American actor): Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , United States of America ,  and New York .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:54, 22 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!  02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , only 1 unreliable source and all roles are minor.  Per notability guidelines, we're looking for a major role to justify inclusion.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to reliable sources.  Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:15, 6 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
Tremendum Pictures: I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 03:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies ,  and California .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello good afternoon because they put the elimination template how can I discuss it Jorse García ( talk ) 02:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   I don't see much coverage of the company itself to meet WP:NCORP , which can be tough to meet.   Everything I see is mostly a mention that one of their projects is linked to them, nothing about the company.  - 2pou ( talk ) 21:24, 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