hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Laura Siņutkina : All I found was passing mentions like 1 and 2 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Latvia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: As nom.  Toadette ( let's chat together ) 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:07, 16 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
ILOT Bet Nigeria : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Literally nothing to establish notability here.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not much to establish notability.  I would suggest a merge and redirect to a section (maybe newly created) in Gambling in Nigeria , e.g list of online gambling....  or thereabout.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  23:17, 1 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
Aspose.Words : Ztimes3 ( talk ) 06:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT as it lacks any secondary, significant coverage.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It Note :Good article, but it has some errors، GQO ( talk ) 8:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This should probably have been blown to bits for WP:BROCHURE alone even if there were sources, but sources there aren't.  Barely any mentions outside their own website at all, and those mentions it does have are not anywhere near close to meeting WP:NPRODUCT .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:05, 13 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
House of Hiranandani, Chennai : This is not quite substantially identical to the deleted version, but I see no new in-depth sources to establish notability * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments -it is just on the cusp of significant coverage .  I'm not sure which way and would like others' input.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:59, 18 April 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!  09:06, 25 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
Savage Humans : 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies , India , Madhya Pradesh ,  and New Zealand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find anything that indicated notability for this company.  Schwede 66 09:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nominator.  Nothing from searches.  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think the reason why we are not able to find this company in the search engine is because of it's name as you know, the SEO work with regards to the keyword a person searches.  this company has a very common name that's why people are not able to find it in the searches.  Syed Sadique Hussain ( talk ) 11:07, 26 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
Kreuz Chemnitz : Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany .  Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Run-of-the-mill interchange.  Dough 4872 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references, and I think notability is now clear.  As well, there would probably have been newspaper and magazine articles published when the structure was initially designed and built, and later when it was redesigned and rebuilt.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES .  And the vast majority of what you've linked is UGC or primary.  Nice refbomb.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am undecided on this nomination, but there is no need to be insulting.  -- Rs chen 7754 02:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is quite literally a refbomb, that much is objectively true, as Eastmain dropped a pile of 8 references (largely primary) at the end of the lead section.  Let's just say I'm a little frustrated at this user showing up all over the place throwing out policy-ignorant keep votes.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:MILL .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : It's just run-of-the-mill .  Agreed with Trainsandotherthings.  CastJared ( talk ) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agrees with the User:Trainsandotherthings comment.  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 16:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  CastJared ( talk ) 06:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Editor was blocked as a sock.  -- Rs chen 7754 21:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Whilst I certainly appreciate Eastmain's efforts here imho the sources all seem to be "bottom of the barrel" - The majority aren't reliable or primary sources (There's 1-2 possibly 3 I'd say were just about acceptable but the majority are rather poor).  – Davey 2010 Talk 17:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice I've done some searching with and without Google News and have not found any hits, and the fact that the dewiki article is not very well sourced leads me to think there are probably not sources.  If any turn up, I am open to revisiting.  -- Rs chen 7754 18:39, 31 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
Som Production (SP) : Ae245 ( talk ) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Ae245 ( talk ) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The fact that a CSD A7 tag was placed on the page and then removed without much proper attempt to fix the problems makes me vote delete too.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Wrote promotionally, sources are only primary.  My real namm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons ) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography , Advertising ,  and Somalia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP , the somali inside news ref looks like a paid placement and certainly reads like an ad, a bouncewatch entry doesn't count for notability, and is little moe than a database entry anyway.  All other sources primary, and searching does not come up with anything else.  2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 ( talk ) 19:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , does not meet notability guidelines and is promotional.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdirahman Ali .  Star action ( talk | contribs ) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, The fact that this page is deleted and then removed without much proper attempt to solve the problems is my vote keep too.  192.145.175.211 ( talk ) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This comment was posted by

Discussion outcome: delete
Abdul Mannan (indian politician) : Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not pass NPOL and borderline G10.  Mccapra ( talk ) 14:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete municipal councillor is not notable, unless GNG is met.  I can't find anything for this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:11, 29 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
Young Americas Business Trust : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article currently consists of two dead links.  I found some more sources, though I doubt that they are independent as some of them are copy-pasted and all of them have mission statements.  Nothing about them appeared on the news either.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:08, 10 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
Impulse-based turn system : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the subject likely fails WP:GNG .  Searching for sources is made slightly difficult by the game with the name "Impulse"; however, even with extensive searching I was unable to find any secondary sources that discuss this game mechanic.  (There is discussion about it on BoardGameGeek, however, per WP:BGS , that does not constitute a reliable source, as it's user-based.)  There are game mechanics that have secondary reporting -- see what is a deck building game and what is an area control game .  Greatpopcorn ( talk ) 01:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fairly sure there has been meaningful sourced discussion on the pros and cons of impulse-based "initiative" systems.   I've certainly had those discussions a number of times (with different people) and I recall reading about them back in the 1900s (that's fun to say).   But I can't find anything.   Of course, I played Champions, Car Wars and SFB, and I imagine the intersection of folks that played all those is vanishingly small...  Hobit ( talk ) 19:02, 16 October 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!  23:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only found the term used in game descriptions.  Lacks SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 22:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the only sources I've been able to find are other wikis and forums; doesn't have WP:SIGCOV .  - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 16:31, 26 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
Vian van der Watt : JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A few bits in profiles of his previous U20 appearances, but probably not enough to pass WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:36, 30 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
Based on a True Story (Paddy Milner album) : Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music .  Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:26, 24 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
Cake Mania (series) : The page has been without valid sources since 2010.  It's best off mentioned on the page of the first game, i.e. in a "Legacy" section.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I agree, the first game is definitely notable.  The other games, not so much.  The second game has some articles from Pocket Gamer [51] [52] [53] [54] and a preview from IGN [55] and this one [56] (technically a reliable source according to WP:VG/S ).  The sources for every game just go downhill from here because all I found for the third game was [57] .  The idea to put it under a 'Legacy' section in the article for the first game is great.  Props to nom.  MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I went ahead and added a legacy section for the first game per comments above.   I did find 3 different RS reviews for Cake Mania 2 , so if you really wanted to, you could maybe make a standalone article for it, but I'll leave that to some other editor.   One annoying thing was the games have been released on a bunch of different platforms at different times, and are all delisted from stores now, so I was struggling to find accurate release dates for all of them.   In the end I just listed the release years and avoided going into specifics.  CurlyWi ( talk ) 20:14, 14 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
2026 Ottawa municipal election : This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  Happy to keep it up if someone can find more information, though.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- WP:FUTURE .  This is three years away, and only mentions the incumbent mayor is up for re-election.  So far, it looks like an advance ad for "...Re-elect Mayor..."  However, flipping backwards through the older Ottawa municipal elections, their Wikipedia articles were set up years in advance.   Don't know how they weren't challenged, since I've seen "future" US election pages immediately put up for deletion.   Do we have a standardized guideline for future elections?   If not, we should.   However, allowing this serves to be an advance promotion for whoever is running.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree this article's creation is too early, I'm not sure what you are talking about.  Most past Ottawa elections were created maybe one year in advance, and that's only because that is when candidates start discussing possibly running.  Not too long ago candidates could file as early as January.  Now, there is only one election article (2010) that was created years in advance (by me, guilty as charged!), but that was because there was already some polling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom – WP:TOOSOON .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 01:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , obviously without prejudice against recreation in late 2025 or early 2026 once there starts to be actual stuff to say (and, even more importantly, reliably source ) about it.  At the federal and provincial/state levels, we have a tendency of allowing "upcoming future election" articles to exist fairly early in the cycle, in part because it's possible to track ongoing public opinion polling on the performance of the incumbent government, content about political issues or scandals that impact the government's evolving prospects of reelection, party leadership changes, and other things like that which build context — plus, in a minority government situation like Canada's in right now, the next election could literally be called at practically any time , so something has to be ready to go on the snap — but at the municipal level there's far less value in jumping the gun this early, because it'll be at least two years before there's any meaningful content to be added at all beyond "this is a thing that will (probably) happen, the end".  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:50, 12 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
Rostand Junior M'baï : Simione001 ( talk ) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found this , this , and this , none of which contributes towards GNG in my opinion.  Pinging @ GiantSnowman : nonetheless.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First source OK, second source weak, third routine - overall not enough, but better.  Giant Snowman 22:43, 20 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
List of cinemas in Oceania : We're not a business directory; none of these are notable movie theaters.  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Business , Lists ,  and Oceania .  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Orphan list, and with good reason...this is not a subject anyone would need an encyclopedia for.  Wikipedia is not a directory.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is better as a category than an article, and with Australia and New Zealand removed.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] •Change to Category- as per @ MrSchimpf PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NOTDIRECTORY.  Agletarang ( talk ) 12:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Clearly WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as none of the theaters on the list have articles.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as entries are not notable.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 06:17, 6 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