hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Thunder Boogie: Jprg1966 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a non-notable music work, no charting singles, no critical notice, no reviews, no sales records.  Nothing for GNG or NMsuic.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this doesn't appear to be the subject of any substantial coverage.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nomination.  Not notable.  Charsaddian ( talk ) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - When the band has no article that is an indication that they are non-notable, and if that's true then so are their albums.  This one received no pro reviews or any other reliable coverage that I can find, and it's only visible in the usual retail and streaming sites.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Muhammad Ashar Asghar: The reference cited in this BLP are either unreliable or don't mention the subject at all, contradicting what the SPA Ritajon ( talk · contribs ) claimed when they created this BLP.  A quick Google search also yields not much, indicating a failure to meet the basic WP:GNG.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C avarrone 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  None of the sources in the article or found in BEFORE have WP:SIRS.  Found promo, twitter memes, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sources.  // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Based on my findings, I haven't found sources beyond those that merely provide passing mentions.  Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG as well as WP:DIRECTOR , as his works are not notably recognized.  Grab Up - Talk 12:05, 16 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
Bon Air Baptist Church: A quick BEFORE search yielded no information beyond non-independent or non-reliable mentions.  Looks like a local church without notability.  Potential as a merge is minimal, as content is all primary and fails NPOV .  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity ,  and Virginia .  Pbritti ( talk ) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ; other searching turns up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS .  Fails WP:NORG , WP:GNG .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:08, 30 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
List of 20th-century outdoor proponents and outdoor educators: The definition of "outdoor proponents" and "outdoor educators" is very vaguely defined and not a good subject for a list, especially when arbitrarily limited to a specific century.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Environment .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Way, way, way too vague for a proper list with the variety of people listed here.  Reywas92 Talk 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Uselessly overbroad topic.   Like having a list about "food proponents" containing chefs, nutrition scientists, competitive eaters, food scientists, restaurant chain CEOs, cookbook authors, and farmers.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:15, 31 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
Jyoti Central High School: Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  Sources present are primary.  A previous PROD was contested .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Bihar .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Still a stub with lack of significant coverage from reliable sources.  Lorstaking ( talk ) 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - searches yield social media and database pages, nothing that would pass WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 29 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
Philmont Training Center: WP:Before via newspaper and library search shows no independent sources covering the center itself in depth.  All current sources are from the organization that runs it or a conference listing.  spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Scouting ,  and California .  spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For the reasons outlined by spryde.  Axad12 ( talk ) 18:41, 17 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
Yugen (restaurant): The page creator proceeded to request its undeletion, and two days later they haven't edited it at all.  I'll repeat my reasons for nominating it for deletion in the first place: "Non-notable restaurant whose sources are quite local (meaning they fail WP:AUD ). All are written promotionally, as is the article. There's no evidence that this is notable in the long run or at the present time. The sources lack WP:SIGCOV , and they mostly focus on the food and the interior of the restaurant."  The article itself is in bad condition, composed mostly of a promotional description; even if it were "improved", I don't think there's a lot to add.  In addition, the restaurant opened relatively recently, near the end of 2018, so there's no historical value there.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 11:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Australia .  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 11:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per my previous ! vote.  Mainly local reviews.  The Sydney Morning Herald may be more reliable but it's actually by a journalist based with the Age in Melbourne.  LibStar ( talk ) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Right now this is just an article cited to WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS of a local restaurant.  Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL on its face and WP:NCORP as well.  Restaurants can be notable, but they need more than just local reviews.  SportingFlyer T · C 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems to be mostly WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and I could not find information to pass GNG.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For the reasons outlined by the nom.  It is against the spirit of a restore request to get an article restored and then not bother to work on it.  Especially in light of the editor's TBAN on AFD.  I've also nominated Francoforte for the same reasons.  HighKing ++ 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Philtech Institute of Arts and Technology: Sanglahi86 ( talk ) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Philippines .  Sanglahi86 ( talk ) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives.  No good target for redirection.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails, fails, fails WP:GNG , WP:NORG , and WP:CCOS .  Only thing keeping this article from WP:A7 is the fact it is a school.  Bgv.  ( talk ) 06:27, 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
Verition Fund Management: References are routine business news.  scope_creep Talk 05:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and Connecticut .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets look at the references: Ref 1: [46] Signs office lease.  WP:PRIMARY Press-release.  Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.  Ref 2 Form ADV" (PDF).  SEC.  Company docs.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 3 Moves its office.  Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.  Routine coverage.  Ref 4 [47] Press-release as its in multiple locations.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 5 [48] Hiring news.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH routine coverage.  Ref 6 [49] WSJ article.  About the last company.  Not in-depth.  Single paragraph.  Fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 7 [50] Opening a new office.  Fails [[WP:SIRS] Routine news.   Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Ref 8 [51] hiring news.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH These are the most routine news I've seen in a long time for supposed references.  Hiring news, new offices, previous company and company docs.  Not a single WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:NCORP .  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WPNCORP as nominator notes.  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:53, 30 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
Djamal Msaidié: No indication of notability.  Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because there is no notable news, mentions in books, etc.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 19:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:26, 12 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
Dariusz Szulik: Does not meet WP:GNG .  signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland .  signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Regarding this man himself, all I could find so far are transfer news from 2009 and 2011 .  Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia is also a stub without major edits since its creation.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not enough WP:SIGCOV is present for this subject to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:45, 19 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
List of This TV affiliates: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists ,  and United States of America .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It will help to have a much more detailed rationale.  This TV has evidently ceased to exist as of about May 31, 2024, in a very low-key discontinuation.  The only way people realized something was up was when it started disappearing and being replaced with other diginets by affiliates across the country.  Their affiliate list was already out of date, and they had abandoned all social media in late 2023.  The closest parallel is that we delete categories for defunct TV networks by affiliate, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 23#Category:Twist (TV network) affiliates) .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even though the closing has yet to be sourced outside the few that follow such closings on YouTube and Twitter (there's not even any proper news or even a note from an affiliate noting the channel's owners are no longer programming it and what they air now), for all intents and purposes this list isn't really needed any longer and was long better handled by the category system.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Category:This TV affiliates was listed at CFD [30] , but closed as no consensus.  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fairly, I can see why, I would wait for confirmation of closing from somewhere before nominating a category; the last thing we ever want to do is remove something that is still a going concern before we confirm it isn't.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:35, 21 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
Francoforte: References fail to meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  Article was restored but not worked on, no improvements.  HighKing ++ 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Organizations , Companies ,  and Australia .  HighKing ++ 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Pinging previous participants Nythar and LibStar .  HighKing ++ 16:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete at least 2 of the sources are local.  I'm not sure if urbanlist is quasi-advertising.  Fails WP:CORP .  The article creator who is currently banned has a bad habit of recreating deleted articles, which shows a failure to accept consensus.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NCORP .  4meter4 ( talk ) 19:22, 4 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
List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to voerages in 'country x', not to assert notability.  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists ,  and Algeria .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 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
Alfred Nau: Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and France .  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This page should not redirect if it is determined he's non-notable, as there's a notable politician .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:14, 23 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
Batavi (software): No evidence of any significant coverage.  WP:BEFORE reveals a listicle and not much else.  Jfire ( talk ) 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Also seems to have a very promotional tone.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , couldn't find any reliable sources on this.  DFlhb ( talk ) 20:39, 15 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
U-Night: This article fails GNG as I don't see any coverage.  No significance seen.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless the article is significantly improved meeting GNG standards, I'm leaning towards redirect to Victory (church) and integrate relevant content under a new subsection.  - Ian Lopez @ 14:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you find any useful information in the article that warrants a section on Victory (church) ?  Timothytyy ( talk ) 23:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gave the article another glance, it shouldn't have been created in the first place as there is no useful information that can be added to the Victory (church) article.  Changing vote to Delete .  - Ian Lopez @ 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Nothing useful to merge.  — hueman1 ( talk • contributions ) 01:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 10:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete seems to be a non-notable local church event.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Seriously? You might as well allow, say, any American church's Halloween party to have an article. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 13:26, 16 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
KNMQ-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or throw into New Mexico LPTVS.  Danubeball ( talk ) 20:18, 5 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