hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Comparison of US and Chinese Military Armed Forces: Remsense 诉 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Remsense 诉 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists , China ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've found several sources treating this topic in a direct non-synthesized manner .  Was a WP:BEFORE search even conducted?  Left guide ( talk ) 01:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cortador rephrased my thoughts better.  Remsense 诉 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then would keeping and moving it to China-United States military rivalry be a workable solution?  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP , and if re-titling the article would align its scope more closely with the available sourcing, that would be a good thing.  Left guide ( talk ) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern isn't the article title, it is whether or not a table in this nature is encyclopedic.  A "for x of State A , see y of State B " so to speak.  I would actually very much read an article called China-United States military rivalry if it demonstrated just that in a text form, covering what was said by secondary sources, and a timeline.  But that isn't what this article purports to be.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It's probably worthwhile to have an article called China-United States military rivalry , or an article discussing a hypothetical future armed conflict between the two.  We don't need a table comparing what exact names their defence ministries have.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is a weird mixture of factoids.  How is it a comparison to list wars they were involved in?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Completely pointless.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : my concern with this isn't that it's been covered before by external sources, as given in the listed sources above by Left guide —these are both global superpowers with similar but different structures, of course there will be secondary sources comparing them—my concern is instead this is unencyclopedic and the problem with a lot of synthesized WP:NLIST concerns is " where to draw the line?  and I don't think this to be very encyclopedic.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:18, 26 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
Diagnostics of Karma: In the previous keepers' nom says "There are many independent and authoritative sources"; well I found no WP:RS that fit enwiki requirements.  - Altenmann >talk 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Religion , Spirituality , Science ,  and Psychology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (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 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All the sources and links are primary and I don't see any way this passes WP:BOOKCRIT nor WP:GNG .  I cannot locate any appropriate sources.  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 05:04, 14 February 2024 (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!  23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  Featuring a book on tee vee , or a book tour, are not evidence per se of notability.  This article by itself doesn't fit into any regular category, and would have to be extensively edited to make sense .  19:05, 26 February 2024 (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
Hanna Mishchenko: No reliable in-depth media coverage; affiliated non-RS only; Ukrainian wikipedia is absent as it is not reliable there too.  89KimberlyRoad ( talk ) 07:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the person is clearly not notable and does not pass General Notability.  Looks like spam -- 88.214.186.108 ( talk ) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some hits in Gnews on German websites, unrelated to this person.  I'm not seeing notability.  "Social activist" that led a group to Turkey and wrote business papers.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:28, 24 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
Themes of Christianity in hip hop and rap music: Note that only one of the sources being used as inline citations even remotely talks about the topic, the rest being either just song lyrics or sources on specific parts of the topic (i.e. entirely on rap or entirely on Christianity) that are being used to WP:SYNTH together statements.  While I highly suspect the topic is a notable one, any article on it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and this article that is entirely one person's original research should not stay in the article space.  The article was PRODed a year ago by another user for the same concerns of original research, but was deproded due to it being a non-controversial deletion, so I am bringing it to AFD for discussion.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There seems to be a surprising amount of literature on the subject.  So a worthwhile article could almost certainly be written.  But this looks indeed like complete WP:OR .  -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TNT , the topic has actual literature covering it, but this essay in its current form is mostly WP:OR .  I'm genuinely sad for the person who spent their time and effort writing it, and I think it would be worth being saved somewhere - just not necessarily on Wikipedia.  I hope they'll be able to familiarize themselves with how Wikipedia articles are usually written and become a great contributor!  Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 00:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is not a personal essay, but a singular output for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of San Francisco/Oral and Written Communication Section 17 (Fall 2016) .  Trawdarula submitted this as a student, and has not edited since. .  — Maile ( talk ) 03:27, 28 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
Culture of Camden, New Jersey: Shellwood ( talk ) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a student project but it doesn't appear to contribute much new information or sources.  The main article's section could use a trim, but not in duplication like this so I'm not sure what the point is.  I'd recommend a redirect or draftify and that the student consult with their teacher and Wikipedia Expert about proper editing and WP:SPLIT procedures.  Reywas92 Talk 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a stand-alone topic.   It should be incorporated into the Camden, New Jersey article.  Ira Leviton ( talk ) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV .  There is no policy argument given, no analysis of sources, to dictate deletion.  There is plenty of possible additional material.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously every city has sources on its culture, but please compare this page and Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture .  This is a sloppy copy and paste job that resulted in duplication and little unique content.  Of course additional material could be added here or to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture , but it should be a proper split with summary style, not what this is.  WP:REDUNDANT and WP:DUPLICATE are policy arguments not to keep the page.  Reywas92 Talk 20:16, 14 May 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!  23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Blatant unnecessary copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 ( talk ) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete strictly inferior to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture ; if kept as a split of that article there would need to be a new copy-paste from the city article to replace the article contents, which are less thorough and contain non-encyclopedic phrases removed from the main article.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete article is a copy/paste from and redundant with Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture .  Gjs238 ( talk ) 14:05, 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
The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp: Donald D23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The network it's on, EarthX , doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE , it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show.  The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion.  The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it.  Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:53, 12 April 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 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 24 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
Angelos Perikleous: They're clearly not the same person, though.  The best coverage that I could find for the footballer was Lemesos in Sports and 24 Sports , both of which are not significant coverage and are copied mostly from a club press release, so also don't meet the WP:IS threshold.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cyprus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Nominator is spot on, there is another brief piece copied from a press release about him being appointed the AEL team director (it uses the word manager but he's not the actual manager), but nothing of substance.  -- GGT ( talk ) 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 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 Earth is My Prison: The one review is a site where you can pay to get your book reviewed, and nothing better can be found online among the 23 Google Hits [9] and zero Google News hits.  Already repeatedly created and moved to draft, time to put an end to this.  Fram ( talk ) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  Fram ( talk ) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , non-notable book.  Gsearch/news brings up hits on Felicity Huffman, Alexiy Navalny and earth sciences, nothing found for this book.  No critical reviews that I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as above, no evidence of notability.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 09:12, 1 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
Bolanicyon: Only used by Malkani.  No secondary sources.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Organisms ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 12 August 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!  18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs ) 21:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Please don't create several almost identical nominations, you should instead do a WP:BUNDLE .  Tercer ( talk ) 12:12, 21 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
Glenn Fleishman: His books get him close to WP:AUTHOR but there is still a significant gap.  So many of the sources are by him or are interviews of him and these do not count for notability.  Before searches here in Europe have failed to find anything which really stacks up.  As it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism ,  and Technology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This was undeleted for some obscure reason and, not noticing it was an undeleted older article, I sent it to draft because it was sitting on the review queue as new - and so clearly not ready for mainspace and offered such scanty notability.  Although that draft was subsequently denied on submission by another editor (confirming my view that it wasn't good enough for mainspace), the move to draft was, correctly, undone by Liz noticing it was too old to draftify.  It has since led a charmed life as a BLP of someone clearly non-notable.  Not a great deal has changed, the subject still doesn't qualify as notable per WP:GNG as a journalist, author, historian or podcaster.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt Created by "Glenn F", possibly Glenn Fleishman.   Reads like a resume.   Deleted and restored twice.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:41, 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
00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC): No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG .  And now it lacks WP:SIGCOV .  The first nomination is so old.  XpediaF1 ( talk ) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  XpediaF1 ( talk ) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG .  Evaluation showed that one of the source is a blog, cuttingchai.com and this fails reliability.  Two other sources simply have reference about the subject, belittling the politicians on the anniversary of attack on Indian Parliament.  That's about it.  There is no significant coverage on the subject itself, notable enough to have an article of its own.  RangersRus ( talk ) 16:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unable to find any significant coverage that justify subject's notability.  He seems notable only for a minor old event held a decade ago.  Macbeejack ☎ 12:29, 27 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
The Roaring Twenties (band): Boleyn ( talk ) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found nothing.  I really don't know why it was deproded.  It is a bit of a puzzlement, since a notable band always makes an impact at any time in history, it is always recorded, even if its 100 years ago.  It's not some writer, or a historian or playwright, may be so obscure that they are invisible.  There is no coverage, no social media, nothing on fb, nothing on myspace, reliable source doesn't turn up anything, Gbooks has nothing, nothing in the open web or some fan wordpress site.  scope_creep Talk 14:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Comment The reason I deprodded this, as explained in the edit summary, was because my google searches were so filled with false positives that I was not, and still am not, confident that I would find true positives if they existed - especially given that the most obvious ways to exclude this hits about (other) bands that perform in the roaring twenties style would also exclude any hits about the band in question.  Accordingly I felt deletion should not occur without the the subject being accorded the more in-depth look for sources that AfD provides over PROD.  Additionally, the article claims coverage in sources that appear to be offline and which I don't have access to.  In short, I don't know whether this band is notable, but I do know that it is impossible to tell either way from just a simple google search.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All these magazine are still available, Map in Scotland, God in the TV and Art Rocker here: [1] scope_creep Talk 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's seemingly 0 coverage of this band online.  While offline sources may exist, they're hard to verify because no article title or author has been provided.  Also, they're all from Spring 2006 and notability should be WP:SUSTAINED .  Their discography was seemingly limited to a rare release EP and a couple compilation albums which doesn't bode well for notability.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:48, 2 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