hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Altair4 Multimedia: I searched for sources using all alternatives: "Altair4 Multimedia," "Altair 4 Multimedia," and "Altair Multimedia," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH .  GSS 💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy .  GSS 💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , History , Archaeology ,  and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, which is needed to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  The subject fails both of these guidelines.  Grab Up - Talk 06:31, 24 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
Patso: The single citation appears to be from a Turkish blog post from 2016.  Cabrils ( talk ) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per WP:NOTDICT Mr Vili talk 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Chip butty .  A quick search returns some news articles and passing mentions in some books but nothing in-depth that would justify a standalone article.  It seems to be identical to chip butty.  Aintabli ( talk ) 05:02, 21 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
Piero Cabel: JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Peru .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 08:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination as this young footballer's career is mostly confined to small clubs.  I don't see any evidence that he'll gain recognization or be notable in the future.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 18 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
Day Smith: They are brief mentions, however, and I cannot see WP:SIGCOV of him.  He does not meet WP:NCYC .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Cycling ,  and California .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All what is being found is press releases.  Fails WP:SIGCOV as there are no independent, verifiable references. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not meeting ACTOR, or even general notability.  Nothing found in news or in a general search, other than some BMX websites and a rather bare Imdb profile.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 11 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
Mark Edwardson: Does not meet WP:NPOL at this level (no "significant press coverage", just routine local arguing).  WP:BEFORE also does not reveal any significant coverage for his television or radio activities beyond routine coverage of him existing and passing mentions in articles about other things.  Flip Format ( talk ) 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Journalism , Radio , Television , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Flip Format ( talk ) 10:56, 2 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!  07:37, 9 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!  07:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Politicians at the town and county council levels do not automatically pass WP:NPOL just for serving at that level — the only level of local office in England that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to all holders across the board is the narrow tier of directly-elected big city mayors, while the test most local officeholders have to pass is that their careers in politics have generated a hell of a lot more press coverage than has been shown here.  Meanwhile, his prior career in journalism is staked solely on the presence of a staff profile on the self-published website of his own former employer, which means he hasn't been shown to pass inclusion criteria for journalists either.  Bearcat ( talk ) 23:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article has been around a long long time, but I would have voted ! delete on its previous problematic pre-political incarnation as well for failing GNG.  Standing as a local councillor does not bootstrap it unfortunately.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:19, 17 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
Indian Reunification Association: Almost all the references are primary and not independent .   Also fails WP:GNG .  KSAWikipedian ( talk ) 05:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  KSAWikipedian ( talk ) 05:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:28, 15 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
Charlotte–East Carolina rivalry: Appears to be poorly sourced fancruft.  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , Baseball , Basketball ,  and North Carolina .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The sources in the order they're given: nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, brief mention of trying to develop an in-state rivalry, nothing about rivalry, says AAC schedule through 2026 "reestablishes some longstanding geographic rivalries and provides a foundation for new rivalries to develop" without naming any of them, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry in the text or attached video, nothing about rivalry, nothing about rivalry, source skeptical a rivalry exists ("Rivalry or not ...") but quotes one of the coaches calling it one (primary source), nothing about a rivalry, title of piece is skeptical ("Don't call it a rivalry — yet") and quotes the same coach saying it's not really a rivaly ("I hope it turns into a rivalry, but I wouldn’t quite call it that"), nothing about a rivaly just some stats, and ditto.  That's it.   This is clearly WP:OR , someone trying to build the idea that a rivalry exists, but the sources do not say this, and the one that seems to lean a little that direction is directly contradicted (by its own quoted source person) in the next source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For consistencies sake, make sure you review this one too: Appalachian State–Charlotte rivalry Delete .  With only one football game having been played between the schools (and that one this fall), it is way, way WP:TOOSOON to have a Wikipedia article discussing this as one of college sports' notable rivalries.  Add to that the lack of WP:SIGCOV focused on this as a rivalry.  And finally, the one source in the article that mentions the issue concludes: " Don’t call it a rivalry — yet ."  Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:22, 21 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
WordLift: I expect they will fill in their deletion rationale here.  I am neutral as nominator unless I comment otherwise below.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I‘ll repeat the arguments I put on Talk:WordLift#Proposed deletion : The company doesn’t seem to meet WP:CORP since it is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.  The provided sources are often press releases published in minor publications, blogs or can‘t be attributed to the company like the price in 2011 or the book from 2013 when the company was founded in 2017.  Googling for current sources results in the same type of sources as currently in the article: self generated content, no independent reliable sources I could find.  213.55.221.7 ( talk ) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support , created by one-purpose account, only notable due to PR, and reeks of paid editing.  ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 07:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just another WP:NN mid-tier software company MNewnham ( talk ) 03:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article on a company making the WordPress plugin of the same name.  Startup coverage and announcements of the company's partnerships and grants are not intrinsically notable, and I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability as a company or for the software .  AllyD ( talk ) 12:46, 21 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
Anupallavi (TV series): Still zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG .   Was BLAR'd by an IP, but then the redirect was contested, without improvement.  So we are here.   Searches did not turn up anything.  Onel 5969 TT me 11:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment odd that there’s no article in Tamil.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless sources are shown in Tamil.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  // Timothy :: talk 06:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no SIGCOV.  – Meena • 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It needs more adequate sources to be kept.  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 20:05, 19 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
Umer Naru: The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Theatre .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per my check, the subject fails to meet WP:NACTOR as there are no significant roles in notable films or dramas.  It also fails to meet WP:GNG since the sources are just interviews or passing mentions.  His own words can’t make him notable; it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent sources to establish notability.  Grab Up - Talk 09:01, 24 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
Let's All Be Free Film Festival: Can't find anything online, thus does not meet WP:GNG in my books.  TLA (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and England .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:01, 14 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
Margarita Vargas (footballer): All I found were passing mentions ( 2018 , 2019 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Bolivia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 14:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:54, 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
Milkshape 3D: WP:VG/SE shows no significant coverage and barely any mentions in reliable sources.  IceWelder [ ✉ ] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  IceWelder [ ✉ ] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Can't locate any reliable in-depth coverage.  Fails WP:GNG .  -- ferret ( talk ) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , reluctantly.  There's a fair amount of discussion online, but it's all old and comes from unreliable sources.  If someone can come up with good secondary sources I'd happily switch my vote to keep, but I couldn't find any.  Moonreach ( talk ) 18:24, 21 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
Joseph A. Laroski: Also no secondary sources Let'srun ( talk ) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included.  I don't see how they meet General Notability.  ---- VViking Talk Edits 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk ) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per WP:COMMONSENSE .  We've always had articles for federal judicial nominees.  Why stop now?  There would need to be a compelling reason to change this precedent now, and I don't see anyone proposing one.  Marquardtika ( talk ) 18:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent".  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone.  Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point.  Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.  MIAJudges ( talk ) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If so then where are these headlines?  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk ) 13:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The Keep rationales presented above are totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, and I hope and trust the closing admin ignores them entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines to cover the lack of anything better to proffer.   Looking over the article, what I see lacking are not only independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards, there's nothing that isn't primary.  Ravenswing 06:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; agree with Ravenswing in full.  If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_and_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden .  I seult Δx parlez moi 14:12, 1 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
Bajo el alma: Nothing found in a BEFORE.  Tagged for notability since 2022.  PROD removed with "won award", but that is not mentioned in the article, no link to that information was added to the article, and a search did not provide any information as to what the award is.  Donald D23 talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mexico .  Donald D23 talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG .  – Meena • 10:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:47, 20 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!  00:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I’ve added some content and refs but still not sure it passes.  It’s mostly churnalism and PR rather than in depth coverage.  The fact that it was the channel’s first production and that it won the award for worst new Telenovela May help a bit.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:15, 27 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