hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of current National Arena League team rosters : Article lacks sources independent of the league and many of these players lack notability on their own as it is.  Readers are much better served visiting the respective team websites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , American football ,  and Lists .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete long lists of mostly non-notable people, which don't add encyclopedic value, or meet WP:GNG .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No claim or references for notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 14:36, 28 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
Peter Ventzek : Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , Engineering , Japan ,  and United States of America .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:21, 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!  23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Seems to me that the AVS award alone passes C2 of WP:NPROF , and meeting one criterion is sufficient.  Qflib ( talk ) 05:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to Delete, thanks to JoelleJay, as I now see that this award is only available to AVS members and therefore it does not satisfy C2.  Qflib ( talk ) 02:37, 29 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!  23:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think an award from the American Vacuum Society, in a specialty he previously chaired for that society, reaches the level of prestige expected for NPROF C2.  I'm not seeing anything else to indicate a notable career; his citations aren't particularly astonishing for his field on Scopus.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just curious - do you think the award is not sufficient for satisfaction of C2 simply because it's awarded by the AVS?  Or because it's in his field of specialization?  Or both?  I'm honestly not following.  Qflib ( talk ) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think the award is anywhere close to distinguished enough to be comparable to e.g. a Guggenheim Fellowship.  The fact that he was previously chair of that subspecialty for AVS makes it even more clearly a minor internal award within the society.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly not comparable to a Guggenheim, agree.  But AVS is a pretty prominent organization and this is not an "internal award" by any means.  See here: https://avs.org/awards/division-group-awards/plasma-science-technology-division-plasma-prize/ .  These awardees are prominent scientists and engineers in this field.  Qflib ( talk ) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Plasma Science & Technology Division requires nominees be AVS Platinum members.  It's exclusively an internal award.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying; somehow I'd missed that.  Qflib ( talk ) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  "Ventzek joined Hokkaido University in Japan as associate professor."  We almost never find associate professors to be notable.  His subsequent work was for profit.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:12, 31 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
Rajib Moni Das : Just passing mentions no in depth sources.  NP83 ( talk ) 20:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Absloutely nothing notable about this.  Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Theatre ,  and Bangladesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG .  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 16:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Sources in the article appear to be all interviews and brief mentions, nothing with SIGCOV.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  If someone finds IS RS with SIGCOV fit for a BLP, let me know.  // Timothy :: talk 20:49, 1 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
Bandarawela Dharmasoka Central College : All sources are unreliable.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Asia ,  and Sri Lanka .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this probably could have been handled, via PROD process.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , lacks significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 02:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - school PRODs almost always get contested so I can understand why this has gone here.  Searches in Sinhala don't seem to yield much.  I get stuff like Lanka Information , although I'm not sure that's referring to the same school.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of reliable sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:55, 22 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
Łęki Kościelne SK : There is no sign that this place actually exists.  It was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago.  The location in the article is simply a street in the village of Łęki Kościelne .  There is no indication what SK stands for.  A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Łęki Kościelne SK in the Polish regulation of place-names .  FOARP ( talk ) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Identical situation and hence, my rationale, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ktery SK .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable/non-existent per FOARP -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:34, 23 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
List of programmes broadcast by TV9 (Malaysia) : Article is a largely unsourced programming guide for a television channel.  No sources showing this meets GNG as a stand alone topic, or NLIST showing WP:IS WP:RS showing this has been discussed as a group.  BEFORE found nothing but other programming guides.  I can find nothing that would make this a notable list, but if sources are ever found, this article would need TNT.  // Timothy :: talk 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists ,  and Malaysia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Three sources, multiple section formats and so many 'I think this happened' departures?  This needs to be Old Yeller'ed then burned .  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I admit that this article is completely unsourced.  I was into the channel so much; hence I edit this article very often until 2015 when I lost interest.  Since then, these "kids" dominate the article and I don't care about this article anymore.  ~~~ Khairul hazim 03:10, 24 December 2023 (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
Luxury Card : All existing sources are either PR pieces or covering the trademark lawsuit, which should be in the Centurion Card article instead.  Also article is created by a single-purpose account.  NM 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  NM 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 17 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!  07:12, 24 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
North Valley City, North Dakota : Mangoe ( talk ) 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Dakota .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  @ Mangoe : Not specifically related to North Valley City, but I found this list of resources about North Dakota place names: https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/North_Dakota_Gazetteers If you have access to any of these publications (perhaps at your local library), you might be able to better tell whether a GNIS point was a community or not.  In general, searching for (name of state) gazetteer ought to help you find some helpful resources.  * Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Without reliable sources that either describe this as a legally recognized populated place or provide significant coverage (GNIS is neither), we have nothing to establish notability.  – dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 29 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
Gary L. Coleman : PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , California ,  and Pennsylvania .  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 00:41, 2 May 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 03:34, 9 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!  03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find.  I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:09, 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
Katıverelim Rakıyı Da Şaraba Katıverelim : WP:GNG concern has been up for 7 years.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete single source, per nom.  Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 20:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete And I see Tsifteteli is not a great article Chidgk1 ( talk ) 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A single non-RS and a quick search returns no reliable sources.  This obviously does not merit a standalone article even if good sources were found.  Aintabli ( talk ) 21:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 1 bad source and I can't find any good ones from a quick google search Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:12, 2 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
AntiVirus Gold : Shows up on a few "how to disinfect your computer" sites but nothing else.  Previously dePRODed with a nonsense reason in 2008 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence this is notable.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no source establishes notability.  Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 20:28, 29 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
Billy Pinnell : An article about a non notable sports journalist that died in the 1970s, which the article is strangely written like the person knew them.  Doesn't seem much is readily available, if there is any, about them unless someone has access to old British Newspapers.  GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Sports .  GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No available online sources at this time to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG .  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there's some coverage in newspapers for which he was a contributor, so I don't think it's independent.  Hack ( talk ) 05:24, 2 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
Monthly Mirrat-ul-Arifeen International : The cited sources are from the magazine itself. – Owais Al Qarni ( talk ) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  – Owais Al Qarni ( talk ) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 28 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!  20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No sources in the article, zero hits on Google News, and nothing substantial pops up in a Google search either.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:26, 16 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
Cryptovermes : Now we don't usually have any issues with newly coined taxa at lower levels, given that they are validly published, but I don't believe that applies to these top-level unranked clades, which are more in the nature of a broad hypothesis than a taxonomic finding.  I would suggest that some uptake beyond the originator would be required before we can have an article (even a sub-stub) on this.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology .  Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I'm inclined to agree.  At this level, we need some kind of secondary or tertiary sourcing, or some WP:IS alternate source that confirms the thesis laid out in the only given source.  UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I couldn't find any articles citing the source paper that use the term, and the external link appears to be the first author's PhD dissertation, so the two sources aren't really independent.   Maybe an article would be appropriate when/if this hypothetical clade is more widely accepted and written on.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree that this is a taxon that would need independent sourcing to find out whether the new grouping is valid or WP:DUE in that field.  KoA ( talk ) 14:42, 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
Melinda Looi : Written like an advertisement.  Few references beyond press releases.  The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews.  Geoff | Who, me?  03:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fashion ,  and Malaysia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] hi There.  May I know what is the problem with this wikipedia please?  thanks.  Melinda Looi ( talk ) 11:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Melinda Looi ( talk · contribs ) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page.  Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem, according to the nominator, is "Fails WP:SIGCOV . Written like an advertisement. Few references beyond press releases. The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews."  Drmies ( talk ) 20:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the article are puff pieces, as mentioned by the nominator.  I'm from Malaysia, and I know Melinda Looi.  The things here in wiki are actual facts about her.  I object to this deletion and disagree with the nominator.  Kunal5651 ( talk ) 03:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) - — Kunal5651 ( talk · contribs ) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page.  Cabayi ( talk ) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) }} [ reply ] Delete the article since its only attribute of some note is the gallant effort to create notability out of thin air.  We could point out the blatant failure to meet WP:GNG but one trusts the failure is evident .  And the odor of promotion is overwhelming: We have kamikaze accounts , such as this or this working diligently on the wreckage.  We even got a blocked account, such as this one .  We might even have the subject itself creating it.  Quite a gallery.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Judging from the logs, this is an autobiographical advert that the subject is still actively maintaining.  128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 19:25, 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
Sachiko Furuhata-Kersting : LoganP25 ( talk ) 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO.  I tired . jp and . de websites, the only items that come up are places to buy/stream the music, or concert listings.  Nothing outside of these items we can use to build an article.  What's currently used for sourcing is primary.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:22, 29 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