hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Norman Jacobs : Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations.  None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual.  Heavy Grasshopper ( talk ) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom .  Heavy Grasshopper ( talk ) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Maybe go back and work on the article because for now not enough here.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:22, 17 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
Death of Shaylee Mejia : Zanahary ( talk ) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime ,  and California .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seems a clear WP:BLP1E situation.  Reliable sources only cover her in the context of a single event, she is a low-profile individual, and the event itself is not significant (although it is of course very sad).  WP:NOTNEWS also relevant, I think.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 08:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really get your argument here.  If it's an event based article it can't really be a BLP1E issue?  But this definitely doesn't pass NEVENT either and should be deleted on those grounds.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I guess it's not technically a bio but about the event of her murder?  The line is maybe a little blurry in the case of an article that is solely about the death of a single person.  But agree, WP:NEVENT doesn't seem to be met either.  There's no deadline , but there's also no evidence of continued coverage since the event or that this event will have any sustained significance.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 06:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find a half-dozen articles in Gnews about the event happening from the time it did, then nothing.  Another non-notable death with no lasting consequences, NOTNEWS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The incident which could be a potential murder/manslaughter case is already gaining significant coverage in the entire country, not just from local news.  There will likely be bigger matters and legal proceedings concerning the death, which if you thoroughly investigate the details you will find some connection between the bullying and violence that the victim endured.  Cheera L ( talk ) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we aren't a CRYSTALBALL.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the article's author btw Zanahary ( talk ) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete too much innuendo and no sustained coverage.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 21:48, 3 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
Growing American Youth : Most of the coverage is local press ie St Louis Post-Dispatch which doesn't meet WP:AUD .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Missouri .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  Google search showed that it is indeed only in St Louis.  Yeah, the audience is too small.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 00:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete more coverage outside of the sources presented would be needed to meet notability requirements.  UptonSincere ( talk ) 02:32, 21 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
Voronoi manifold : MarioGom ( talk ) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  MarioGom ( talk ) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge verified portions into Voronoi diagram .  Owen× ☎ 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, do not merge .  Concept appears not to have been taken up in the scientific literature; Google Scholar finds only two publications (one an unpublished report) that mention this phrase.  They don't cite each other and appear to be using the phrase to mean different things.  Not significant in the mathematical literature nor as something that is worth mentioning in the Voronoi diagram article.  (To compare: Google Scholar claims some 62k hits for Voronoi diagram, which currently has 44 citations, so inclusion there would need some evidence that, among subtopics of Voronoi diagrams, this is in the 0.1% of them that are most relevant.) — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Merge or delete?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : if the verified portions are the empty set, as David Eppstein says, then my "merge verified portions" trivially degenerates into a Delete.  Which is to say, let's do what Dr. Eppstein suggests.  Owen× ☎ 13:41, 15 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
Leo (band) : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't find any good-quality sources to use in the article, and Leo doesn't seem to meet any of the provisions in WP:NBAND.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Maybe Leo deserves a Wikipedia page someday, but right now, there just isn't enough reliable information to keep this article around.  Waqar 💬 15:45, 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
Kosmic Free Music Foundation : The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability.  toweli ( talk ) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Visual arts , Organizations , Computing , Internet , Websites ,  and United States of America .  toweli ( talk ) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s.  Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community.  75.3.240.177 ( talk ) 04:55, 5 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!  08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  I could find no reliable sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG , unfortunately.  Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:29, 17 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
Vietnamese Brazilians : Three academic tutors are not the basis of an article either.  The sources towards the end of the article largely support trivial information about food or a business venture that doesn't warrant its own article, together with a lack of something to make a dent in Brazilian society or the Vietnamese diaspora as a whole.  Some of the word choices are frankly ridiculous as well, e.g. "a wave" of 10 people.  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Vietnam ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Vietnamese diaspora : 150–200 permanent residents of Vietnamese ancestry in Brazil.  Unneeded CFORK of Vietnamese diaspora , fails GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 09:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete well explained by nominator.  Such a tiny few in a population of over 200 million does not make it notable.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  An extremely small diaspora with an estimated 200 permanent residents of Vietnamese ancestry in a country with over 200M does not need its own page.  Clear Looking Glass ( talk ) 01:58, 25 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
Andi Hina : My searches in Albanian sources yielded News Sport , which is a brief announcement of his release (along with a few other players) from KF Këlcyra , which was playing at a very low level as this part of his career was not even recorded on Soccerway.  Balkan Web mentions him in a news story about a protest following his arrest (again, along with other players).  He is not mentioned in any detail in this story and I can't find any news story that addresses him in detail, either for his career as a footballer or as a result of his arrest.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Albania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly not notable enough.  Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 18:38, 24 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
Omid Khansari : Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Sweden , United States of America ,  and Florida .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 September 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!  06:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject lacks the required level of notability per WP:GNG and also WP:NCREATIVE .  The article's creator has been indefinitely blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts" but that's just collateral damage.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:41, 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
Scott Wharton (businessman) : A WP:BEFORE search turned up only more of what's cited here: primary sources, press releases and sponsored content.  Tone, unsourced content and creator's user page suggest conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines.  Sources on Google that is at least reliable only shows subject being appointed as CEO without any other indepth details.  Checking the article's sources, most of them are unreliable or primary sources.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Coverage I find is exclusively PR items.  What's used in the article now is non-RS or so-so sources, per CiteHighlighter.  The last one is the only "green" source and describes this person taking a trip (and was written by the subject here), hardly the stuff of notability in Wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources too PR based and not in depth enough to establish notability.  Editing84 ( talk ) 09:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems far too much like WP:PROMO to me InDimensional ( talk ) 14:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Sourcing consists of YouTube, LinkedIn, press releases, alumni interviews (not WP:INDEPENDENT ).  We have relatively articles in Fast Company and Entrepreneur magazine, two known sources, but they are self-published and thus cannot establish notability.  TLA tlak 01:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – most are just press release, for example businesswire here .  Again, most sources are not from independent news outlet sources.  Unless other sources exist.  Until then, delete for now. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:51, 13 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
Novus Summit : As grand as it sound this summits actually lacks any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources.  Notability is not inherited from those who attended or those who were honoured.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Economics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:07, 10 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
Redwood Robotics : The sources I found consist chiefly in: Database entry Blog posts Primary sources from SRI International, Meka Robotics, et al.  CEO profiles Acquisition announcements which is too weak for an article about a business.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 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
Autonomic Network Architecture : It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept.  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  09:31, 10 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
AlgoSec : Brandon ( talk ) 23:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , Internet , Georgia (U.S. state) , New Jersey ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not even close to [[ WP:NCORP . Feel free to ping me if better sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates ( talk ) 10:38, 6 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
Masood Chishti : I don't think it is not enough to pass WP:GNG .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 23:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Delete An 8 year old stub article MNewnham ( talk ) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per MNewnham.  Non-notable lawyer.  41.97.58.27 ( talk ) 20:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Uncited and no GNG.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 25 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
Rick Steff : I couldn't establish that he himself meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG , or that there is a good WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 09:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 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
Ashish Khandal : Probably also undisclosed paid editing , see page log on simplewiki as well.  — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India .  — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , Flowery sourcing found in non-RS [59] , nothing used in the article can be considered RS.  Paid advertising all over the place.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 13 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
Retro Rewind : Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Radio ,  and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Plenty of mentions using the phrase, nothing for a radio program found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:38, 9 August 2023 (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, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Found nothing but trivial mentions.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:21, 23 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