hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ivica Vidović (footballer): Zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources.   Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Onel 5969 TT me 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Croatia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:01, 16 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
Manifesto Press: Upon searching for it, I did not find much coverage of the publishing house outside of it being mentioned as the publisher of a book in a number of different news articles about different books, but I couldn't find much that talked about the publishing house in depth that was not from the publishing house or a piece in the Morning Star where the Morning Star announces it is working with Manifesto Press.  If there are any sources that I was unable to find, I'd be more than happy to withdraw upon those being provided.  Please ping me in such a comment.  Tartar Torte 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Politics ,  and United Kingdom .  Tartar Torte 00:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unless additional sources are found this doesn't fulfil WP:NORG or GNG requirements for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The Morning Star reference makes no mention of Manifesto Press.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:35, 21 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
SubTile: The article was probably created by the software's developer, judging by nickname, so there is a conflict of interest.  The article can potentially fall under WP:A11 or WP:G11 section for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:58, 24 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!  07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article cites no sources and I'm unable to find any coverage.  Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 01:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Leaving aside WP:COI considerations, this article lacking references , and searches are not finding the sources needed to demonstrate attained WP:NSOFT / WP:GNG notability.  AllyD ( talk ) 08:12, 1 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
Penistone FM: All I can find are a single article about it receiving grant funding in 2021 [1] and a few passing mentions in articles about other things [2] [3] .  I'm just not sure there's enough weight here in terms of references to back up notability, particularly given that the radio station has been broadcasting since 2009 so at some point in that time should have done something coverage-worthy, if it was notable in any way.  Flip Format ( talk ) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Flip Format ( talk ) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very little coverage available anywhere to demonstrate notability.  Fails WP:GNG .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Would support redirecting to an appropriate list if one exists.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:53, 21 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
Roderick L. Evans: Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject F ASTILY 07:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Bands and musicians , Poetry , Christianity , Florida ,  and North Carolina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per a quick BEFORE search.  If stuff exists offline or under a different search term, I can change my ! vote.  However, this looks like a case where no sourcing exists.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find any evidence of meaningful coverage in RS either.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A spammy BIO sourced entirely to self-published sources.  No reliable sources exist covering the subject.  The article doesn't even make a plausible claim of notability and could even be speedied.  - The literary leader of the age ✉ 00:28, 2 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
East Nashville Crips: Lacks reliable sources.  Much of the article appears to be a weak synthesis of published articles which do not support the main thrust of the article.  Geoff | Who, me?  15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Tennessee .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  Shaolin Punk ( talk ) 23:38, 16 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!  23:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Cannot find any SIRS sources.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 04:55, 22 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
War and Peace characters order by appearance: If we want to change that list into sequential order, that can be discussed, but what purpose is there to have two identical (ideally, if not in practice) lists of characters, with the only difference being their order?  Also, verification of this list seems to be prohibitively difficult.  However, what really struck me are the number of 'blanks' in this article, which should never be included in the article space, but which seem to be here permanently.  Examples include "In Book Four????" and "he tells ___________ that" and "In Book xx, He becomes a partisan leader in 1812 (Book .....)."  So even though deletion isn't clean up, this only adds additional bases for deletion.  Anything useful can be merged to the main list.  In conclusion, being one of the greatest works ever does not mean that War and Peace is exempt from common sense list guidelines.  ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Russia .  ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  By order of appearance fails WP:NLIST by a wide, wide, wide, wide margin.  (Also, the Grammar Police are greatly displeased with the title.)  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Redundant to the much more appropriate and better organized List of War and Peace characters .  As this list contains no sources outside of the book itself and is peppered with what appears to be original research, there is nothing worth merging.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 05:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete redundant and intra-pointless trivia.  AryKun ( talk ) 14:47, 23 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
TB11Cs3H2 snoRNA: Mass-created by one user in 2009.  🌺 Cremastra ( talk ) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  🌺 Cremastra ( talk ) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : nothing beyond the one cited primary source.  Owen× ☎ 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Niche topic sourced entirely to one primary source; little else found.   No secondary significant coverage.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:30, 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
GeminiJets: Ref 1 is not independent (interview), refs 2 through 4 are directly from the company's website (or archives of the site), ref 5 can be considered WP:ROUTINE as the COVID-19 pandemic affected many companies, not just this one.  Uhai ( talk ) 21:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada .  Uhai ( talk ) 21:27, 1 April 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!  00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  None of the sources in the article are IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BEFORE showed promo material.  // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the various sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 19:55, 18 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
Susie Kitchens: Coverage is routine like of her speaking to the media on behalf of the UK Government.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Kenya , Tanzania ,  and United Kingdom .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:26, 21 November 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!  05:42, 28 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
Himanshu Singhal: Does not meet WP:GNG .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination, can't find SIGCOV in reliable sources, just paid placement like the sources cited.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 13:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Coverage is insufficient to support an encyclopedia article at this time.  BD2412 T 18:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Subject aren't seem meets to WP:GNG policys for at this time.  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 12:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All paid PR nd adv.  Worldiswide ( talk ) 08:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Article author appears to be a prolific creator of these things.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 11:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Wholly promotional and the sources say so.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 13:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - utterly non-notable.  Sources are two very obvious press releases, a business directory listing, and an article about an entirely different person which was written by the subject.  Created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and very likely for undisclosed compensation given that case's history.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:33, 27 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
W41AP: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : in theory, there is at least an outside chance that a 32-year low-power television station, moreso than many of the newer all-diginet LPTVs, might attain the needed significant coverage to meet the GNG and merit an article.  But it was also the television station of the Sandusky Register — which, if nothing else, ensures that the Register would not be an independent source here.  I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of nominal merger with the Register ' s article if there is enough sourcing to merit even that (though being tagged as unsourced since 2011 is not exactly an encouraging sign), but a separate article seems hard to justify at this point. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 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
Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre: Several of the citations included are reliable and independent but are not supportive of notability.   This title was previously deleted via AfD, but this is not a re-creation of the original but a new and improved (albeit still not notable) article.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia .  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:37, 16 October 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 03:39, 23 October 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, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Toowoomba, Queensland as alternative to deletion .  Deus et lex ( talk ) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Previously deleted and could only find routine coverage that doesn't meet WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm sure that it's an essential place for those who want to buy things, but that doesn't make it notable.  Doesn't seem like much has changed since it was last deleted.  TarnishedPath talk 09:55, 3 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
List of Estonian gliders: One suspicious entry: Lauk Flying Wing.  Peep Lauk is not notable Estopedist1 ( talk ) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is unfortunately useless and fails WP:LISTN .  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Estonia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  One entry (a red link, not much a of list).  Fails WP:LISTN .  ExRat ( talk ) 02:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per ExRat , and there's nothing to add.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:42, 1 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
Z CAM: Only one even looks like one.  But the window for draftification has passed.  Content appears to have been split off from ZCam .  The relevant guideline is WP:NORG , so being part of news stories is not enough.  ( NPP action )  Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:30, 18 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!  08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only the first source appears relevant at all, and the article isn't even about the company or its technology, but a brief digression about the US-China trade war.   Everything here could be covered better in the main ZCam article.   I could also support a merge to that article.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subjects are not related.  Other than being similarly-named brands revolving around digital camera products, they have nothing to do with each other.  I have no interest in weighing in on this deletion, other than to express my opposition to re-adding this to ZCam .  Dancter ( talk ) 03:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal: It's not clear that this needs its own page, as the relevant material is included in context on the Philip Schofield article.  Given the recency of the article creation, it can be safely deleted without too much concern about external links or external search engines.  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Events , Sexuality and gender ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete An unnecessary and undue split from the subject's article.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As this is copied and the subject has an existing wikipedia article already.  I can't think of any valid reason to keep it.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is covered in context within the Phillip Schofield article, so this article is an unnecessary content fork.  Don't see the need for an AtD here.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:16, 18 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
Radical chrétien: Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the Ralliement des créditistes , with the label "Créditiste".  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Christianity ,  and Canada .  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 20:52, 10 July 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!  20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is an example of this newspaper coverage: [33] Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 04:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The notability standards for political parties don't confer any "inherent" notability freebies just because the grouping existed as a name on a ballot per se, and require the organization to pass WP:ORGDEPTH on reliable source coverage about it, but that's lacking here and there's not much else turning up.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Found basically nothing relating to Radical chrétien, only Jean Chrétien.  Just because somebody decides to run under a certain party name, doesn't necessarily mean that that party name is notable.  ❤History Theorist❤ 19:05, 19 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