hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gulf States Utilities : signed, 64andtim ( chat ) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  signed, 64andtim ( chat ) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject are provided here.  Rodgers V ( talk ) 13:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Both the nominator and the discussant are relatively new editors, I hope some editors with more experience can also review this article which was created by a longstanding editor/administrator.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The only SIRS source I could find was the Texas Handbook source in the article, but that doesn't singlehandedly pass NCORP or GNG, and I cannot find anything else.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 00:36, 19 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
The Cinderella Project of Baton Rouge : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Louisiana .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This subject lacks any reliable, secondhand and thirdhand, sources that I can find.  Also, the article is self-promotional, lacking any analysis that critically reviews its organization and charity efforts.  Paul H. ( talk ) 20:13, 19 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!  20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Joseph Stordeur : The article is a stub created by Lugnuts (of ArbCom infamy).  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Belgium .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG: clearly not a notable.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG nor any other notability standard User:Let'srun 14:28, 4 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
Aeroeste : A BEFORE search didn't yield any SIGCOV ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify - Clearly an established if small commercial carrier but no apparent independent media coverage prevents a vote to keep.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 02:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Aviation ,  and Bolivia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No claim to notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 03:02, 28 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
Underdark (band) : 1. No citations, exclusively primary sources, aside from a single metal.de review ( https://www.metal.de/reviews/underdark-in-the-name-of-chaos-14520/ ) I couldn't find anything abt this band.
 2. There is a more notable band called Underdark from the UK which would better suit this page, albeit I can't just replace the content on the page y'know.  So unless this gets the deletion go-ahead I can't write about the band.
 That is all.  Chchcheckit ( talk ) 16:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with Chchcheckit here, the UK Band actually has a significant number of independent sources and is probably notable for an anti fascist stance as well.  Perhaps the Polish sources have been drowned out by more recent coverage.  I am also not a Polish metal fan, so if one could be found perhaps that would help here.  Spiralwidget ( talk ) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think per looking at the previous discussion on this page from 2012 (which reached no consensus), one editor did suggest two sources from nowiny24 (which has a page on the polish wikipedia , albeit it is not found/logged on English Wikipedia, which is a problem regarding notable sources).  Also: this band is not on polish wiki either (per prev. discussion as well).  Chchcheckit ( talk ) 18:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A brief search indicates that it indeed the UK band that is notable, not the Polish one, and with the band apparently not having released anything in 15 years, that is unlikely to change.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; only substantial sources I could find relate to the UK band.  Darling ( talk ) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see how this meets WP:GNG .  No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag too.  I'll ping a Polish Wikipedian interested in music, User:Yurek88 .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per above reasons-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:39, 30 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
Bryan White Foundation : Anyway, the organization does not seem to be notable at all, and the coverage reflects that--there's nothing but, at best, a few local notices.  Drmies ( talk ) 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Uganda .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable entity, called a "sham" by local authorities.  [9] .  That's all the coverage there is, the rest is about xyz person from the foundation landing in the country, or having done charitable things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : promo puff for a non-notable entity.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 19:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per Gsearch and comments by Oaktree b and Vanderwaalforces Cacaochippy ( talk ) 27 October 2023 (UTC) 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
Simon Kassaye : Seems to fail WP:GNG .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Soccer Canada profile and Tranfermarkt, that's all there is.  Nothing in Gnews at all, literally nothing to be found.  Delete for lack of any kind of sigcov Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Though I have found sources from offline Canadian newspapers about his career.  However, the fact that his career was rather short I fear that this page will never get past being a stub article.  Shotgun pete ( talk ) 03:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ten total career appearances for a team that existed for one year—fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
HotHead Productions : Only source is WP:PRIMARY .  Pepper Beast (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York .  Pepper Beast (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Nothing appeared in my searches.  Geeraarts ( talk ) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All I could find were YouTube videos and social media posts.  Non-notable company = delete.  TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  TLA (talk) 06:13, 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
Outline (note-taking software) : It isn't notable, though.  Aside from the software's own website, all the cited sources are unreliable affiliate marketing blogs.  I've searched and I can't find anything but more blogs and indiscriminate download portals.  This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted.  MrOllie ( talk ) 12:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable software [31] and [32] don't even mention it.  Likely a PROMO attempt.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Don't pay to have wikipedia articles made, if they get deleted, you've wasted your money.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Checked for sources, not notable.  Funny, got embarrassed this slipped through WP:APPLE , then I noticed it was me who had prodded it.  Cool.  DFlhb ( talk ) 03:56, 24 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
2022 Asian Games closing ceremony : Article was draftified to Draft:2022 Asian Games closing ceremony but then recreated by the author.  – brad v 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Draft exists.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt way WP:TOOSOON for an article, draft already exists.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt -- Draft exists, and another user ( Mickaion1990 ) has started deleting the AfD template.  Let's CheckUser them and see if they're KimSumi21's sock .  T3h 1337 b0y 20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was already opening an SPI before I even noticed the overlap on the draft.  Meters ( talk ) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt since we have a sock on this now.  TOOSOON.  Meters ( talk ) 22:31, 31 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
Nassau County Sports Commission : There are no sources liked in this article.  Google turns up nothing relavant.  Google Books only turns up trivial mentions .  Scholar only turns up more trivial mentions as well as brief or passing mentions [...] of non-notable awards .  — Matrix(!) ( a good person! ) [ Citation not needed at all; thank you very much ] 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies ,  and Sports .  — Matrix(!) ( a good person! ) [ Citation not needed at all; thank you very much ] 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there's nothing in JSTOR.  Newspapers.com has many hits, but I only found local stories with casual mentions of the topic, or quotes from the topic.  Fails GNG as far as I can discern.  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Seconded on all.  ItsMoosher ( talk ) 01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, PROD"d twice so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Proposed WP:ATD : Redirect to Gary I. Wadler .  -- Habst ( talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether this page should become a Redirect or be Deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . Don't see a redirect that makes sense here either, the one proposed here seems to me like it would be a WP:SURPRISE . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun , thank you for your vote. Why would it be a surprise? The redirect target was the president of the organization. Of course, there is always a possible redirect to Nassau County, New York as well. -- Habst ( talk ) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is what I was thinking, yes.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
St. Michael Technical School, Surakarta : There are some news articles concerning the school - their students won some competitions but that does not confer automatic notability, especially as the competition is not notable as well.  None of the search results showed any coverage about the school in depth.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG and no source provided ever since creation.  Also per nominator, passing reference is not a point for qualifying WP:V .  CSMention269 ( talk ) 03:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , were these search results in English or the local language?  Cardofk ( talk ) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:08, 19 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
List of deadliest Storm Prediction Center days by outlook risk level : There's no sources for the deaths and linking deaths to particular outlook days in a catalog like this is not something any reliable sources do.  Also fails WP:LISTCRIT due to lack of an unambiguous criterion for including data points.  Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Lists ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as original research.  -- 2600:4808:353:7B01:6554:AF94:4384:BF19 ( talk ) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no longer contains wind, hail, and flooding deaths, title is very vague and main body of the list only counts tornadic fatalities, and finding new additions isn't easy per above.  32 deaths were confirmed from March 31, 2023's High risk, but it isn't included due to 6 of those being non-tornadic.  The list only contains 10 entries per risk level, and Marginal and Moderate dont have as many because adding any more would require perusing numerous sources and that's not mentioning for some of these that their outlook risk levels were downgraded or even cancelled when some fatalities occured.  GeorgeMemulous ( talk ) 12:39, 23 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
Bed Kingdom : Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : Reference 6 may be just enough to establish notability, but the other sources are either churnalism or trivial business fluff in the "check out these 50 hot retailers of this week!" style of non-news.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update — the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing.  — Biruitorul Talk 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.  Mentions here and there don't cut it.  Also we should have zero tolerance for undisclosed paid editing.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:30, 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
Communication-enabled business process : There is no meaningful coverage of this in independent reliable sources.  This was coined by a consulting company to advertise its services.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Google scholar indicates the term is in sustained use in academic papers.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This does not seem like sustained use in academic work to me.  As far as I can tell, most of the references are to papers mostly published in the period 2008–2012 and authored by two people: "Wu Chou" and "Marcos Báez".  The other academic references are in obscure publications that have barely any cites.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The user who created the article, initially copypasted it, and has no edits outside the article and its disambiguations/redirects .  21 google scholar results in total is not enough considering there is no significant coverage outside Chou and Báez.  It is just a buzzword.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 08:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Yeah, that sounds like a buzzword.  It's also practically orphaned.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:07, 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