hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Muriel Frost : There simply doesn't exist anything to justify GNG or SIGCOV, and the article already cites no sources.  I'm not sure whether there are any good spots to redirect this article to, as she isn't mentioned at all in the Doctor Who Magazine article and I'm not sure if adding a mention there is a good idea or not, as that's the only good redirect target I can think of.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Comics and animation .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per nom.  Not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a stand-alone article, or reliably explain its notability.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This unsourced article's topic is obviously not notable .  A search for sources indicated that the character is probably not even the most prominent entity with the name "Muriel Frost".  ― Susmuffin Talk 14:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability found.  Could be redirected to something like List of Doctor Who supporting characters , if someone adds some referenced information there.  (e.g. Doctor Who, the encyclopedia: the definitive guide to the hit BBC series (2011) mentions that "Colonel Muriel Frost ... [was] killed by the Slitheen" (p.369). ) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete why was this character even given an article to begin with?  I know our notability standards were low in 2005, but every reoccurring DW character ever low?  Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it would seem are standards were that low.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The character has no SIGCOV.  Alternatively, we could redirect to List of UNIT personnel .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article doesn't mention Frost, and is already in the process of being merged into UNIT , so I doubt that would work as a redirect.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:06, 23 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
Gillian Turner : Only coverage is for stories she's written or appearances on the network.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United States of America .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , South Africa ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NBASIC .  There is some minor coverage of Turner, [4] & [5] , but not really enough to base an article on.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:54, 12 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
Women in Entertainment : As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD.  Nigel757 ( talk ) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Nigel757 ( talk ) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article should not be deleted.  It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work.  Remma2 ( talk ) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument.  If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have.  Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Entertainment ,  and Organizations .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability not established.  Desertarun ( talk ) 19:03, 23 April 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!  23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep So far the references are all short announcements of events, plus some mentions in articles about other topics.  I think this establishes the "newsworthy-ness" of the organization but only barely meets GNG.  I looked for, but did not find, an indepth source about the organization.  That is still needed.  Lamona ( talk ) 03:37, 28 April 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!  23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a non-notable organization with a lack of sourcing, apart from the usual promotional drivel to support its existence.  Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NCORP/ORG.  Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 7 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
Aaron McCormack : Almost all the sources provided are not about McCormack and fail WP:SIGCOV .  Sources 9 and 11 are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians ,  and Northern Ireland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG .  All the sources in the article are trivial passing mentions and/or associated with the subject.  A search for sources outside the article (for example in newspapers in Northern Ireland [16] [17] or Ireland [18] [19] ) return either nothing, false positives or similar passing mentions.  It is also, frankly, hard to ignore the WP:COI / WP:SPA overtones in the articles creation and the WP:PROMO tone in the content.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agreed with those above.  The article is largely uncited, with no coverage of McCormack as an individual.  Thus, it doesn't pass WP:GNG as there is no SIGCOV.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 12:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It does seem a vanity article created by a single purpose editor .  LibStar ( talk ) 07:24, 24 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
Coolin' (music video) : Out of the sources currently used in the article, only the Vibe and InStyle ones are appropriate, while the other sources are either primary or not the best quality sources.  I could not find anything further in my before search.  Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The song itself does not have a Wikipedia article, as it is not notable enough.   Most of the refs were spam/junk.  The remaining refs are from the QT hotel where the video was filmed (not an RS), and Vibe ,  which is just a promotional piece announcing the release.   The video never achieved any real notability and appears in no quality independent RS as a SIGCOV on the video from my search.  WP:FANCRUFT .  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 17:48, 7 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
IFanboy : Rationale for the prod by @ BoomboxTestarossa : : Advertising concerns and other issues unaddressed for nearly four years – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Advertising concerns and other issues unaddressed for nearly four years.  First couple of pages of Google results seem to be connected to the article.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Websites .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for PROMO.  This was the only mention in RS I can find, it's trivial [53] Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per WP:PROMO .  -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because the subject does not pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO .  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 00:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
List of institutions with Sanskrit mottos : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Category:Lists of mottos , List of university and college mottos , and the rather long detailed List of mottos exist.   Are there reliable sources telling how each place got their motto?  D r e a m Focus 23:59, 10 January 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!  02:26, 16 January 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!  01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I don't particularly see why the intersection between motto and Sanskrit would meet LISTN.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:54, 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
Shanti Deep English School : Maliner ( talk ) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Nepal .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can find the school's social media and other non- WP:RS but nothing that we can use for notability.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 1 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
Adrianus Warmenhoven : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Not enough secondary coverage.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Incubate and draftify at this point .  This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion.  I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO , however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG .  I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC .  He was the primary subject of this WP:RS .  Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability.  He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis .  He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace .  There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV , but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability.  Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in.  Bgv.  ( talk ) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Falls short of the GNG.  Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH ( talk ) 02:28, 28 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
Ben Numbi : Joeykai ( talk ) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Democratic Republic of the Congo , Czech Republic ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , we are past the times when 1 game in the USL Championship = an article.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One professional appearance in a five-year career clearly fails WP:GNG .  Also fails WP:SIGCOV .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 05:06, 18 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
Chelsea Gladden : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination .  This autobiography satisfies WP:G5 as a creation of a blocked user.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :Article is already stub and doesn't pass gng also g5 was declined so I think this nomination should stay.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 00:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Advertising ,  and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not seeing any SIGCOV for the subject. - KH-1 ( talk ) 05:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  CV-style page created by a user blocked for spam.  She's all in web-search, btw, but WP:PRIMARY dominate.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 05:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayehm ( talk ) 00:05, 18 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
Pippa Taylor : Very poorly sourced - citations are Twitter, single sentence name drops, a dead citation to her employer titled "WATCH:Pippa And Toby Took Their Relationship To The Next Level..." and two primary citations to Basingstoke Council regarding her mother's role as a councillor.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Radio ,  and England .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like).  I'm not sure WP:BEFORE was done on this nom, but I have done a little searching and the subject has a few published books, but nothing "significant" per WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books.  News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable).  There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer.  Flip Format ( talk ) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination.  I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this .  Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per WP:NAUTHOR .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Tabloids don't contribute to WP:SIGCOV .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No evidence of WP:SIGCOV .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:35, 30 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
Christ the King Church (Trumbull, Connecticut) : — Moriwen ( talk ) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity .  — Moriwen ( talk ) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   As a litmus test, I checked the local rag, which returned few results beyond obituaries detailing funeral services.  I found an article on the diocesan website, but in a few minutes' Google search, that was sadly about it.  The article attributes the church to architect J. Gerald Phelan ; that attribution returns no results on Google.  As a WP:ATD , I would not be opposed to a redirect to Trumbull, Connecticut#Places of worship , where the church is curiously not listed, but could justify a sentence or two.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 14:13, 8 February 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 05:58, 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 ] Delete This seems to be one of many RC churches in Connecticut created by the same contributor that have been tagged for deletion.  Per IgnatiusofLondon , an entry in Connneticut#places of worship should suffice MNewnham ( talk ) 23:08, 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
Tanner (actor) : I have removed some poorly sourced personal information, but the article is still a BLP-violating pseudobiography.  gnu 57 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender .  gnu 57 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Known only by a pseudonym and took a photo with someone famous.  No, that's not at GNG me thinks.  No sourcing for this fellow found either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Entirely ridiculous and non-notable PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR, or any other notability guidelines because of lack of news coverage.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
CIER-TV : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To be fair, at the time this was created Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television station that could be verifiably shown as having a license from the appropriate regulatory authority regardless of whether any other sourcing could be found besides the licensing documents themselves — but that's since been deprecated, and television stations now have to actually be shown to have WP:GNG -worthy coverage about them.  But this has none, and I wasn't able to find anything better on a WP:BEFORE search either — even searching for "Ear Falls TV" just got me hits relating to the Northern Access Network , which wasn't this.  (Given the timing, it might have indirectly led to this, in that the end of that might have spawned a "we need a proper community television station" movement that culminated in this, but I can't find any evidence to verify that hunch.)  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:21, 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