hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bholananda National Vidyalaya: In a WP:BEFORE search, the best I could come up with was a ranking of the school for their district.  The rest is passing mentions, with no significant coverage per WP:GNG .  Moved to draft once, then moved back to main space by article creator without improvement.  Proposed deletion was contested by article creator.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , India ,  and West Bengal .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The page does not satisfy the notability guidelines.  The school is ranked as one of the top CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and there is source to back it but still fails WP:SIGCOV from independent sources.  One of the best option would be to merge the school name with source about its ranking to List of schools in West Bengal .  RangersRus ( talk ) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No evidence of notability.  Often I go for a redirect to the education section of the relevant locality but given the problems evident from the article history, I'm not recommending this here.  Rupples ( talk ) 20:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete : Can't find any tick of notability .  Per WP: BEFORE gave only blogs and ranking by unreliable sources.  Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:53, 3 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
Frank J. Fleming: In a WP:BEFORE , I found a sole RS passing mention of Fleming on the launch of his first book.  Oddly for a man with three mainstream published books, I could find zero reviews in RSes - only the publisher pages.  There appears to be no evidence of independent RSes covering Fleming in depth as would be required for a BLP to exist.  What little coverage of Fleming exists is in fringe non-RSes, and even those are sparse.  I would be delighted to be shown wrong with solid RSes that pass a notability criterion.  David Gerard ( talk ) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America .  David Gerard ( talk ) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - just not finding any notable coverage, similarly to the nominator.  A few passing mentions of his work, but absolutely nothing in-depth in reliable sources.  Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR .  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:40, 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!  23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I could also find no secondary coverage.  I was able to find a singular interview in a blog, but nothing that would contribute to GNG.  Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 02:49, 14 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
IC 3: C messier ( talk ) 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination as it is not notable.  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 15:18, 19 June 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 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non notable.  It's difficult to search on the galaxy identifier because it turns up a lot of false positives (such as IC 310 ), but a check in SIMBAD didn't turn up any article titles that referenced "IC 3".  Nor does it show up in astronomy books.  A few astronomy web sites mention it briefly, but without any substantial discussion.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 05:28, 2 July 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
Dave Kerpen: Little to suggest NPEOPLE is met and WP:SOAP .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Kerpen has since sold the company for undisclosed amount.   I'm looking for sources that give amount or approximation as I think this will aid in NPeople.  Author of a 2011 New York Times Bestseller book.   Was also a reality tv show guest in 2006.   If more is needed for NPeople please let me know and I'll see what I can find.  I do get a WP:SOAP vibe.  The picture adds to this and needs to change IMO.  I do not have vested interest per WP:AVOIDCOI and am willing to make edit the article to meet standards.  CaseyChesh ( talk ) 00:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Plenty of Linkedin posts from this person, not much otherwise.  This is a name drop [25] this is in an unreliable source, but is worth a read [26] if you're a New York Mets fan.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 20 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
Fragments of an Unknown Teaching: The composer does not have an article, which would indicate a lack of notability.  Johnj1995 ( talk ) 01:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:GNG .  I found only a catalog/shopping site.  Neocorelight ( Talk ) 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found two newspaper sources with brief mentions: [20] , [21] .  Not enough to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above comments.  𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:22, 16 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
National Youth Advocacy Coalition: GnocchiFan ( talk ) 20:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails GNG, NORG.  There are some sources, but there is no in-depth coverage of the organization itself that I can find.  Passing mentions fail to satisfy WP:N.  ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:49, 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
IPE Global Limited: Previously deleted and salted as IPE Global * Pppery * it has begun... 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This time too fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.  If sources are found, please ping me.-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO with only descriptions of things the group has done, nothing substantial about them as a company.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : due to lack of significant coverage.  I have also nominated this company's chairman's page for deletion on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwajit Singh .  Teemu.cod ( talk ) 00:33, 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
Control(human, data, sound): Most coverage is primary, and secondary source coverage does not appear to be WP:Sustained .  The most significant recognition appears to be as a finalist for the 2015 CREATE festival - it's not even clear whether the work ended up being presented there or not.  StereoFolic ( talk ) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts .  StereoFolic ( talk ) 01:54, 13 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!  02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - non-notable art performance.  A BEFORE search reveals only social media, download sites and primary sources.  Fails WP:GNG .  The article on the artist Bob van Luijt may also need to be looked at for notability.  Netherzone ( talk ) 14:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable and far too promotional.  Look at the selection of links used as sources.  Graywalls ( talk ) 16:39, 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
Farah Ejaz Baig: Vice chairpersons of Punjab Bar Council are not inherently notable.  Fails WP:GNG .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Delete Not nearly enough notable sources.  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A 9 year old stub MNewnham ( talk ) 19:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per MNewnham.  Lacks significant coverage.  41.100.198.103 ( talk ) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per NLAWYER and GNG.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep .  Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as Vice Chairman of state/province body Punjab Bar Council .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.27.30 ( talk ) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For more policy based input.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Like Asrar-ul-Haq Mian , there is some news coverage about her election, but this is somewhat expected.  WP:POLITICIAN is not applicable to a professional lawyer.  103.65.140.93 ( talk ) 10:59, 2 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
Alan Boswell Group: Eastern Daily Press is the subject's main source and although I'm not disputing its reliability for pages about East Anglia but this Eastern Daily Press article says "Alan Boswell Group has purchased the building in Rouen Road from media group Archant. Archant, which publishes the Eastern Daily Press and the Norwich Evening News, will remain in the building leasing one floor." so the subject and the source are connected.  Most of EDP's coverage consists of routine press announcements that mainly consist of direct quotes from the subject but offer little in the way of synthesis, analysis and criticism leading to what I feel is a lack of significant coverage of this subject online.  Other sources like this one are trade publications that ostensibly reprint press releases, same goes for Cambridgeshire live and I find it hard to believe that the subject's local Chamber of Commerce is independent of the subject.  BigheadBigheadBighead ( talk ) 12:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England .  CptViraj ( talk ) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is probably a delete because the Boswell group, while a substantial company, is ultimately a routine financial company like many others.  It attracts attention in the local press when it acquires other smaller companies, and it also has a charitable wing who've funded a lot of local good causes, thereby also getting some quotes in papers.  But, and this is an enormous but, it is completely wrong and misguided to treat the Eastern Daily Press and the group as related.  One may be, legally-speaking, the other's landlord, but that's a very long way from the Eastern Daily Press's editor being a puppet of the Boswell's, or that the EDP has lost its editorial independence.  The fundamental problem for the article is that no one else outside a very localised/specialised press is actually writing about Boswell's, and everything I can find looks like a press-release anyway.  Elemimele ( talk ) 19:53, 13 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
Bellis habanera: Habanera® is a trademark for a series of Bellis perennis cultivars;  Habanera® Red, Habanera® Rose, Habanera® White  and Habanera® White Red Tips (I believe this is the website of the trademark holder ).  The individual cultivars are not notable, and there's really nothing that can be said about the collective trademark they fall under.  Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not a valid species name, which is the bar for WP:NSPECIES .  As Plantdrew mentioned, cultivars (or in this case trademark branding trying to masquerade as a species), do not have inherent notability.  While it's possible for a cultivar or variety to be notable, this one would have a long ways to go.  KoA ( talk ) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NSPECIES .  Hughesdarren ( talk ) 02:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the subject of the article fails WP:NSPECIES because it is a cultivar with not enough reliable references with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : even if it fails WP:NSPECIES, the subject could still merit an article if it met standard notability guidelines for reliable sources.  It does not, however.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:18, 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
Lunathi Mdatyulwa: Joeykai ( talk ) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 13:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Promotional; no sourcing for notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 22:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's no source to establish WP:GNG .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:48, 30 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
Capitão Brasil: Desperately want to be supportive of pages on non-English language comics, but this one looks like a clunker.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 09:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Webcomics ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support – Searching "Capitão Brasil" quadrinho on Google News gives me four results on Brazilian websites I'm unfamiliar with.  It might be possible to write an article on this character, but there's so little to work with that it's a comfortable deletion, per GNG .  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom and per Maplestrip, it seems to fail GNG.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 03:17, 18 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
Insight Films: The article has one source from a box office site about their film, not the company itself.  I don't see how this article should stay unless multiple in-depth proper sources are introduced.  Producing one noteworthy film doesn't automatically give notability to the production company.  X ( talk ) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  X ( talk ) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article now has multiple films and programmes produced included and a clearly outlined history of the production company, which provides evidence of its notability.  There are citations from IMDB, which itself needs all information to be provided by authentic sources, as well as reviews from papers such as The Guardian and Screen international.  Callyroader ( talk ) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NCORP .  Of the sources in the article the majority are imdb and Wikipedia which are not reliable.  The secondary sources cited do not contain significant coverage of this company.  None of the company's productions appear to be notable and I was unable to find any additional sources that support this company's notability.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 06:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NCORP .  The new version does not meet the basic criteria there, i.e. "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  Being listed in an article about a movie or whatever does not qualify as _significant_, and I can't find any articles about this company that meet the criteria.  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 27 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
The Sport Buffet: Let'srun ( talk ) 23:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports .  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Regional syndication doesn't mean much for notability if the significant coverage isn't there.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 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