hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Shahidayit-e Shandak : It's a different excel file now but still not notable.  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Ganj Konar listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Whilst simply being an abadi does not give a pass of WP:GEOLAND , in this case the population is large enough that the abadi should have been converted into a proper village.  The issue is that even if this happened, it may not have this name (the name apparently translates as "You are martyred" according to Google Translate, though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this).  Looking at the table, it actually does not include an exact match for this village-name, but line 1390 includes 'شهيدايت  شندك which I understand is similar in sound/meaning and has the same number of people/families as in the article.  Personally I'd lean towards just redirecting this to Gowhar Kuh Rural District per WP:NOPAGE since there might at some point actually be a real article about a real village here.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is a notable place (WP:GEOLAND) बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:07, 19 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: no consensus
Rossland Warriors : Fails WP:NTEAM and WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination.  Senior ice hockey was crazy popular in the time period this league existed.  It may be a good idea to nominate the rest of the teams for deletion.  IncompA 18:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - senior hockey received vast amounts of coverage in Canadian newspapers in the era this team was active.  -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 23:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, you have another week to provide some reliable sources as the article is currently unsourced.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A Newspapers.com search reveals an absolute treasure-trove of coverage, obviously a lot of it is WP:Routine , but quite a lot of it is good enough, I don't see an issue with GNG.  I have added a few sources to the article where helpful.  This article needs work, but WP:DINC , willing to put in more work for research provided this article isn't going to be nuked immediately.  Cheers, IceBergYYC ( talk ) 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to review added sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - they appear to still be active, having won the Coy Cup in 2007.  https://www.proquest.com/docview/358177032/11D87318F9BC4D4BPQ/2 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/358123609/11D87318F9BC4D4BPQ/1 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2639214365/11D87318F9BC4D4BPQ/5 , etc.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:28, 1 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: no consensus
NASCAR on television in the 1990s : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY , mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability.  An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively merge to that target.  Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable.  See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split?  ...which is made of Youube links.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:22, 23 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!  02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:08, 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: no consensus
Mesivta Ohel Torah : All I can find about it online is similar to what's here: passing mentions in articles about other things, and routine school listings.  Proposed deletion last week was contested without comment by the article creator.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Judaism ,  and New York .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Bearing in mind that high schools used to (before

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Liz DiFiore: No obvious WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She is not notable and does not meet the WP:BIO Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Comment.  She has an NZ On Screen biography which generally means some level of notability (although I don't know enough about how they select candidates for profiles to assess fully).  She also produced a series called INSiDE which won an International Emmy for Best Short-Form Series in 2021 .  I'd like to do some more research before making a call, but commenting in the meantime while I have some capacity so I won't forget.  Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Updating to delete.  I haven't been able to find any additional coverage of her looking at the usual WP:BEFORE searches, Wikipedia Library and New Zealand newspaper databases, and the online sources are largely passing mentions.  I agree she doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO criteria.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 01:19, 1 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
Guided Functional Peer Support: In fact, looks like one author's pet project.  Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Finland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning delete.  Google Scholar shows very few hits, mostly bachelor's or master's theses and a book that looks to be self-published ( I Sing Support For You: A Self Help Book With Music for Parents and Caregivers of Children Affected by Trauma or Toxic Stress ).  The more scholarly sources are very few, by a rather small group of authors and look to only mention the model in passing.  Kristiina Brunila; Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki; Ameera Masoud; Katariina Mertanen; Anna Mikkola; Kalle Mäkelä (2017).  "Transitions, Justice, and Equity in Education in Finlandlocked".  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education .  doi : 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.130 .  Looks to only mention the model in a footnote.  Kristiina Brunila; Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki; Katariina Mertanen; Anna Mikkola (2016).  "Revisiting the vulnerability ethos in cross-sectoral transition policies and practices for young people in the era of marketisation of education".  Research in Comparative and International Education .  doi : 10.1177/1745499916631060 .  Mentions the model, but does not define it or discuss it in detail.  Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki (2014).  "Tutkimuksen rajoilla kuljeskellen.".  In Kristiina Brunila; Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret (eds.).  Marginaalin voima!  Aikuiskasvatuksen vuosikirja 51 (in Finnish).  Kansanvalistusseura & Aikuiskasvatuksen tutkimusseura.  Referenced in one of the above.  I don't have online access to quickly check whether this mentions the model at all, but I'll take a look whether we have physical copy in the stacks and will report back.  For non-scholarly sources, there appear to be a bunch of Google hits for various kulttuuripaja things (which, I think, are the activity related to the model), but the name is so generic ( lit. ' culture workshop ' ) I doubt we can draw any kind of equivalence or claim that all things discussing kulttuuripaja s are necessarily related to the GFP model.  Independent sources look to be scarce.  For example this STT text is actually an non-independent press release.  There's something about an award , but I cant figure out how big of a deal it is. I'll also note that the original creator's username indicates it's a WP:ROLEACCOUNT (contrast

Discussion outcome: delete
Zil Money: It reads like an advert as well.  Seawolf35 T -- C 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business . Seawolf35 T -- C 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites , India , Brazil ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:PRSOURCE nearly all the sources on the page are non-significant, so this fails WP:NCORP .  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article heavily or wholly relies on press releases.  Of all sources cited I can't find a reliable source that demonstrates its notability.  Metroick ( talk ) 12:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - zero reliable sources .  In 2023, everyone knows that not a free web host nor a directory of ordinary businesses .  Bearian ( talk ) 19:53, 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
Maja Miletić: This is the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Montenegro .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: There were sources, but just mentions the player.  No in-depth sources.  Toadette ( let's chat together ) 05:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , i often come across sports players that seem to be similarly sourced.  yet the articles are retained, as a stub, this may be all this merits and is capable of becoming, but i don't know if that by itself should be cause for full deletion.  again, only commenting, this is neither a keep or delete statement.  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 13:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 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
Centre for Co-operation in Science and Technology among Developing Societies: I only found some scattered references.  The link to the website is dead.  This, added to the already existent issues, prompts me request a deletion discussion.  Either someone comes up with a couple of useful references to improve the article or else it should be deleted.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Science ,  and Technology .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE per nom.  I also looked for reliable sources and only found a trickle of mentions.  Pepper Beast (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the coverage I could find consisted of a series of directory listings that do not provide WP:SIGCOV .  The only other thing out there is this document , which is a primary source as it was made by the India Science and Research Fellowship, the non-notable organisation that established the CCSTDS.  Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just not seeing WP:SIGCOV here.  Seems to be a run of the mill non-notable research group in terms of sources.  Even with my scientist hat on, I'm not seeing anything mentioned that would give me a caution flag indicating there may be sources showing something notable in terms of programs they do.  KoA ( talk ) 16:50, 14 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
Michael Stark: UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete cannot find any decent sources to meet the GNG threshold.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not appear to be notable.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As always, actors do not pass WP:NACTOR just by having roles, they pass NACTOR by receiving reliable source coverage and analysis about their performances in media .  But there's no evidence of that being shown here — and while I did find one 15-year-old article about him in his hometown paper by using "actor" as a search key to filter out hits on his unrelated namesake , one article isn't enough.  Bearcat ( talk ) 03:33, 15 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
Hainan Medical Journal: Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given (but see article talk page).  PROD reason still stands, hence: delete .  Randykitty ( talk ) 11:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Medicine .  Randykitty ( talk ) 11:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This journal is published in China.  Is there a selective database based in China that might list this journal?  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not that I know of.  There are databases that contain as many Chinese journals as possible, but those are obviously not selective.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The lack of digital object identifiers for an academic publication is not a good sign, I believe. It's possible Chinese language sources exist to establish notability, but I can't find anything in English. I considered we might redirect to Hainan Medical University , since the two share very similar names (海南医学 versus 海南医学院) but I see no mention of the university on the journal's website [14] so they may not be connected. 〈 Forbes 72 | Talk 〉 00:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the journal's citation factor? Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not being in any Clarivate database, the journal has no impact factor. Not being in Scopus, it has no Citescore either. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for non-notability.  I'm just not seeing enough about this journal to warrant a wiki article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as failing the closest thing to a standard that we have and lacking a viable merge/redirect target.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:35, 18 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
United Party of Canada (2018): McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada .  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Is this the same party as mentioned here 1 2 3 re-registered, or is this yet another United Party of Canada?  Cortador ( talk ) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cortador Different iteration there is a draft currently on this new version that hasn’t demonstrated notability yet either.  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 21:33, 21 June 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!  03:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Yue 🌙 08:15, 3 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
Gnyana Sudha Vidyalaya Bidar: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Karnataka .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I could find no reliable or significant coverage for this school online through Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc.  Most hits on Google Search were either short advertisements/admissions listings or social media information.  Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NSCHOOL .  The Night Watch (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No information on the article.  No sources mentioned as well.  Not notable.  killer bee 05:24, 12 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