hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Jackie Touah: She was named the goalkeeper of the tournament at the WAFU Zone A qualifying tournament ( 1 ), but I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions of the subject.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Liberia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Found database listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing to establish at least WP:GNG .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:BEFORE search found no sources that would establish WP:NBIO or WP:GNG .  GeoffreyT2000 ( talk ) 15:42, 2 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
Lakshmi Baramma 2: No demonstration of notability.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , India ,  and Karnataka .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:21, 23 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
Preshafood: LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agreed by LibStar.  CastJared ( talk ) 00:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Australia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : notable, SIGCOV exists, presumed notable.  Significant coverage of the business' expansion to the UK, and of a toxin scandal in Hong Kong 2017.  Have addressed some of the NPOV issues through edits.  Please WP:BEFORE Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not confident with the sources that Jack has added.  Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all largely interviews, source 2 describes the technology used but doesn't talk about the company much, and sources 7 and 8 have only a few sentences each regarding the company.  In my opinion, all of these fail WP:SIGCOV .  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and CORP.  JML's source eval is correct, none of the sources provided in the article or by the Keep vote come close to meet SIGCOV addressing the subject -the corp - directly and indepth.  A few sentences do not meet SIGCOV for notability, they simply show existence.  I trust Jack's BEFORE was as exhaustive and they presented no sources with SIGCOV, so BEFORE has shown nothing.  // Timothy :: talk 06:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are interviews where most of the coverage is in the words of the company or its people, or do not provide significant coverage of the company.  Peter James ( talk ) 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable company.  Doesn`t meet GNG and CORP.  Some articles cover News Website's paid advertising news. -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 16:11, 23 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
Raejae Joseph: JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean ,  and United States of America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 10:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 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
Pahle India Foundation: A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH .  GSS 💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  GSS 💬 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per my checking, I found nothing that can establish notability to the subject, It subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  Grab Up - Talk 13:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Poor and unreliable sources.  Page fails general notability guidelines and fails notability for the organization to be warranted for a separate Wikipedia article.  Fails WP:ORGCRIT .  RangersRus ( talk ) 11:23, 23 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
Jithender Yadagiri: He is also known as Jitender Y. All sources are passing mentions.  Point of confusion: If Veduka was his second film, why does this source [48] call the film his debut?  DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions .  Kpg jhp jm 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Doesn't pass as per WP:DIRECTOR , the editor may provide more reliable sources to verify notability .  DSN18 ( talk ) 22:01, 17 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
Real Madrid–Manchester City rivalry: The simple fact that Real Madrid and Manchester City are currently among the strongest teams in Europe that compete for trophies against each other does not make them rivals.  It is a disgrace that this copy-pasted article with zero reliable sources was even approved in the first place.  Monerals ( talk ) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not a rivalry significant enough to merit an article.   IMHO there's no way that a significant rivalry can exist between teams that have only ever met 12 times (arguably six times, as it was 6 x two-legged ties).   The article says "The rivalry is marked by intense matches, filled with talent, innovative tactics, and memorable moments that have captured the imagination of fans worldwide." - you could probably say the same about literally any combination of two leading teams from the leading leagues in Europe, but we don't need a full-blown article on the "rivalry" between every possible combination of such teams...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 10:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Again this is just a head to head with statistical information and WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT clearly applies along with WP:NOSTATS .  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Spain ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Completely different case from Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry , which are teams from the same league, with more than 200 matches between them.  This artcile only includes clashes in recent editions of the UEFA Champions League.  Svartner ( talk ) 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete teams that have played 12 times ever, and that isn't enough to form an actual rivalry.  Nonsense recentism bias.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggestion - : How about we rename this page as head to head between Real Madrid and Manchester City ?  As it is not a significant rivalry or even a rivalry in the first place.  Nithin.john2006 ( talk ) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] sorry, i intend to delete my response.  there are better sources for head - to - head now that i see Nithin.john2006 ( talk ) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't need an article listing every match two teams played against each other, that content is irrelevant and violates WP:NOTSTATS .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:55, 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
Ecom Express: TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable.  None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP .  Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter.  RangersRus ( talk ) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Attaching some sources [33] , [34] , [35] .  These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT .  A Google search would also produce some more reliable results.  Akshith manya talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails CORPDEPTH.  The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content".  This from BII ] is written and published by one of their investors.  This in Forbes is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders.  Finally this in Business Outreach is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile.  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Cos ( X + Z ) 17:19, 11 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
2023 Rajasthan MiG-21 crash: The majority of news publications do not have a sufficient (if any) amount of in depth coverage to justify a stand-alone article for this event.  The event didn't demonstrate much unusualness that would make the accident notable on itself Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation ,  and India .  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 12:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  This event did not have a significant lasting effect.  It was a routine kind of news event on an accident that is not notable.  I did not find a suitable target for merging.  RangersRus ( talk ) 15:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While tragic, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 02:25, 30 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
Abhi: Solemn1 ( talk ) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don't even agree with the NOTDICTIONARY rule, and I still can't find any value to this article.  The two sources are a dictionary and an OR link to the Rig Veda.  What I can't understand is that it has over 250 edits and has persisted since 2007.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as wiktionary material.  There are few pages linking this, but a look at the use cases only convinced me more.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:10, 23 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
Martin H. Pomeroy: Less than six months as an interim police chief is not a basis for encyclopedic notability.  BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and California .  BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Lots of coverage directly of him in the LA Times going back to the mid 90s ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ), but I don't know whether they count as "intellectually independent of each other" as per WP:BASIC .  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He may only have acted as chief for six months, but he was deputy chief for seven years and there does seem to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Necrothesp : A deputy chief of any police department will generate some amount of local coverage.  Is there any here that is not WP:ROUTINE ?  BD2412 T 14:34, 27 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!  07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Interim/acting chief of police that doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy, not seeing notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I'd love to close this discussion but I don't see a consensus yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Being the intermin chief of police for 5 months, even in Los Angeles the most important and consequential city in the world, doesn't meet ANYBIO, and there are not sources showing this has WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  They had a role in the police response to the North Hollywood shootout , but I was not able to find sources with SIGCOV about the subject.  The single source [34] in the article is dead link primary source redirecting to the main page, probably was to this page [35] .  If sources are found, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk 01:11, 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
2021 Mugu bus accident: Coverage of the event constitutes a brief burst of news coverage made up of primary source breaking news articles that do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED .  Textbook example of a bus plunge story .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nepal .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As far as I can tell the coverage only lasted about 24-48 hours.  Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  FatCat96 ( talk ) 16:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:18, 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
RFID Global Solution: No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria.  The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items.  North8000 ( talk ) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Arkansas ,  and Virginia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The PROMO actually doesn't seem too bad compared to some of the others, but there's no eligible sourcing.  It's not really surprising the article would end up sounding like a press release if that's all that's available.  (well, there's some short mention in WP:TRADES but doesn't seem like full articles even there)  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete well-written corporate self-promotional advertisement.  Awards and clients section makes it even more of an advertisement.  Website link takes the reader right to the business home page.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:11, 19 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
Christina Rahm Cook: This may look like an independent good source, but it is the "magazine" from Elysian, a luxury brand which organised the very show they are reporting on, so not an independent source after all.  Fram ( talk ) 07:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople .  Fram ( talk ) 07:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - I first came here to contest but it is clear to me the nomination is correct and justified.  Also of note is that the books authored are self-published.  Dorsetonian ( talk ) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is lack of notable impact.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , original submission was primarily fabricated sources; seo blog "guest posts" with fake authors and brand paid placement.  Details of the subject shift depending on the press; seems to just be a self-published "author" that frequently self-promotes.  Researching other potential sources through searches reveals no other reliable material, although there are lawsuits and MLM claims.  Sam Kuru (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:40, 19 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