hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
1943 Massachusetts State Aggies football team : Lack sourcing.  Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages because they both relate to nonexistent seasons that fail GNG and NSEASONS: 1944 Massachusetts State Aggies football team ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Delete per nom.  Moreover, the articles only mislead readers into thinking that said seasons existed for this school.  -- MuZemike 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Massachusetts State Aggies football UMass Minutemen football as an ATD.  Lacks standalone notability.  Frank Anchor 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Modified to avoid a double-redirect.  Frank Anchor 12:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Normally, I'd be fine with a redirect, but it would be a break from precedent with respect to WWII teams on hiatus.  There were about 150 teams that suspended play and did not field teams during all or part of WWII.  See here .  Our general practice has been not to create redirect for teams that never existed due to the war.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to delete .   I was unaware of this precedent.  Frank Anchor 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should 1917 Massachusetts Aggies football team and 1918 Massachusetts Aggies football team be added here as well?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good catch but I'm not sure about changing the scope when this has been open a few days already.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Not sure the redirects are needed or meaningful.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - while it's theoretically possible that something that never happened might have attracted enough coverage for an article by virtue of never happening, there's no evidence of that here -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 07:20, 22 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
Anserated : Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The structure isn't an encyclopedia article, but the bulleted list does suggest this extends beyond a dicdef.  Perhaps it should be moved to Anserated cross .  — siro χ o 04:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and History .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 9 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!  02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The bulleted list is mainly sourced to dictionaries.   I went through 4 pages of Google Books search and it didn't turn up anything that wasn't a dictionary, before it started returning what can only be described as "other customers also bought" matches.   The remainder of the bulleted list is popular culture (Goethe was ppopular.) references, and inaccurate ones to boot.   The source cited for Goethe simply says, for example, that the keys look like something else that is anserated, not what the article claims.   The source cited for being known for symbolism likewise actually merely says that one poet saw an answerated cross in a dream.   Dictionaries and generalizations not supported by the cited sources, and nothing that I can find for improving matters.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary .  Owen× ☎ 16:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject .  The first sentence doesn't make any sense Anserated refers to a condition where extremities of a creature end in the head of an eagle, lion etc.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no better than a dictionary entry and unclear.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 03:09, 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
Denis Blackham : Additionally the article has been edited multiple times by the subject which is a conflict of interest.  InDimensional ( talk ) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and England .  InDimensional ( talk ) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP.  Fails GNG and NBIO.  The sources do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Found nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I am still alive and well, so why should my page be deleted.  My page explains my career and life.  Nothing wrong with that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemastering ( talk • contribs ) Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  Two of the sources are reliable, but mere lists; the other two are not reliable.  Even if everything is true, as attested by the subject, does not mean they are notable enough for an article.  We have a problem with WP:AUTO here.  In 2007, this was allowed; in 2024, everyone knows we have certain standards .  Bearian ( talk ) 18:47, 17 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
Bombus (software) : Doesn't seem to pass WP:NSOFT .  Has been marked as not notable since 2010.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it appears to fail WP:GNG .  WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:47, 6 March 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!  23:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : sharing a name with the bumblebee genus makes it difficult to search for sources.  But from what I can tell, this does not meet NSOFT.  Owen× ☎ 22:01, 20 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
Lalnunsiama : I'm not seeing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC here.  Best I could find were The Fan Garage , two passing mentions in results summaries, Sportskeeda , two trivial mentions about scoring an own goal, and Indian Sports News , which mentions him once.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India ,  and Mizoram .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Subject fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT . — TheWikiholic ( talk ) 08:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 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
Afghanistan Public Policy Research Organization : Brunnaiz ( talk ) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All the referenced links were primary sources.  While there are some news articles or books mentioning reports or empolyees from the organization, not much can be found about the organization itself.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and Afghanistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The publications themselves qualify for the keeping of this article.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete coverage confirms the organization exists, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There just isn't enough in-depth coverage of the think tank itself to justify a standalone Wikipedia article, even if WP:NONPROFIT applies and the scope of their activities were national (and arguably international) in scale.  That said, is there an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD such that we could salvage at least some mention of the organization and its publications?  (We currently don't have a subject-specific notability guidelines for think tanks.)  In other words, could we redirect this page to another target (and if so, where)?  And/or could we include the organization on a list page somewhere?  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 13:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of its founders have their own article, and it doesn't belong to any larger organization.  Currently there's no place in the mainspace to redirect this to.  Maybe a draft of this can be created and wait for someday when the organization becomes notable.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 10:00, 22 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
Ernesto González (footballer) : My own searches yielded a passing mention in Noroeste and the usual database sources like BeSoccer and Soccerway .  He has an extremely common name so there might be WP:SIGCOV out there somewhere but I'm really struggling and this article has been in a dreadful state since 2016 so an AfD is overdue.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Search yielded little that would come close to WP:SIGCOV , bordering on failing WP:SPORTSBASIC . Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 05:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ' - Per nom, article is scant to the point of empty : MiniMayor98 ( talk ) 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom    -- Devoke water 12:07, 23 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
Mayor of Benazirabad : Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 20 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!  22:29, 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
Sucel Maceo : I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG .  All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010 , 2011 , 2012 , 2013 , 2015 , 2017 , 2018 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 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
Lisa Turner (therapist) : Page sources mostly amount to profile pages, interviews & unreliable sources (Metro, Medium) ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Women , Organizations , Medicine ,  and Australia .  ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the editor User:Human Insider has been indef blocked as a sock puppet.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : any reliable source is directly quoting Lisa Turner about a different subject.  She was a fairy 10:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination and per User:Shewasafairy above, no SIGCOV yet in reliable sources, just interviews, quotes and passing mentions.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Yep, too much quotations in reliable sources guarantees that they are interviews, aside from unreliable content.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only mentions are insufficient to prove the subject's notability and no reliable references were found.  Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:31, 22 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
Firside Junior School : Sources in article and BEFORE did not support notability.  Found routine mill news, database records, etc, nothing establishing notability.  Being the "is the closest junior school in the United Kingdom to an airport" is not a basis for notability.  // Timothy :: talk 11:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : nothing meeting WP:GNG User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, this is my first article, and, after reviewing your note, I agree that this article does not meet standards.  Please proceed with the deletion.  sledger ( talk ) 20:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It is a commendable good faith effort from a new user, but there is no claim to notability.  I would support a redirect if there were a suitable target, but I don't see one.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:06, 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
Lane v. Holder : This was a gun/Second Amendment lawsuit in the U.S., but it never went anywhere; it was dismissed for lack of legal standing , so it was never adjudicated on the merits.  It's not a significant or noteworthy precedent, and no coverage beyond routine.  Neutrality talk 22:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Non-notable, fails WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (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!  23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No indicia of encyclopedic notability.  No indication that this has been widely cited by other cases, studied in law school textbooks, or meets any other criteria we might employ to determine notability of legal cases.  BD2412 T 04:28, 6 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
SunTec Group : Sources are either primary sources or press releases or does not substantiate the notability of the subject.  Unable to find third party reliable independent sources as well.  The article was sent to draft earlier ( Draft:SunTec Group ) and then recreated.  If the article here is deleted, so should the draft as well since this is clearly a continuation from the draft.  – robertsky ( talk ) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America .  – robertsky ( talk ) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only a bout of weariness stopped me nominating this earlier today, and now it's been nommed, I'm only to glad to support the nomination with the observation 'per nom' but also noting that the article is still promotional despite waves of cleanup and the company clearly fails WP:NCORP no matter how much you clean it up.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Probably would've been eligible for G11 in its original state. - KH-1 ( talk ) 13:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found no good refs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no good reliable sources.  Promotional and not notable page.  BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:02, 28 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
British Society for Ethical Theory : It is not clear why this particular academic society should be considered notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Organizations .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 19 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
KJCN-LP : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to list...  I can't find SIGCOV in papers, mostly incidental mentions.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 17:30, 19 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