hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Randy Stufflebeam: Sourced entirely by primary /non- reliable sources, and routine run-of-the-mill campaign coverage .  My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines produced no reliably-sourced significant coverage as needed to satisfy the notability guidelines.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Conservatism ,  and Illinois .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable minor party functionary.  A search for sources, including on newspapers.com, only revealed a few routine/typical election sources providing no WP:SIGCOV of the subject.  A possible WP:ATD redirect could be 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election , but doubtful of the use since he was only a write-in candidate who netted just 0.5% of the vote.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Neither party functionaries nor unelected political candidates are "inherently" notable on those grounds per se — the notability test would require significant reliable source coverage about him to establish a reason why he could be credibly seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for either of those levels of significance.  But this depends on a mixture of primary sources , which aren't support  for notability at all, and run of the mill campaign coverage of a type and depth that every candidate in every election can always show, which aren't enough to make him more special than everybody else.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL .  All coverage of the subject seems to be WP:ROUTINE .  User:Let'srun 22:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:55, 21 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
Rarri Dream: Can't find any reliable , secondary sources in relation to the subject aside from the Earmilk link, and contains original research with the ASCAP citation.  joeyquism ( talk page ) 04:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 13 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have edited this article a couple of times it does include reliable primary and secondary sources though for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 so it passes WP:GNG Firstsail ( talk ) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Firstsail ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  , —

Discussion outcome: delete
Raffetto, California: This article created in 2009 about an unincorporated community was turned to a redirect in 2020 with the reasoning this locale is not a community and never has been .  The RfD decided that this was not a plausible redirect.  Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only "Raffetto" that I can find was a placer mine near to Placerville, California , granted a licence in 1896 and in that year's State Mineralogist report as well as a few subsequent USACE listings up until 1900.   The owner was one Giovanni Raffetto, whom I cannot verifiably identify with John Augustus Raffetto .   It it possible as Giovanni Raffetto's mine was using Weber Creek, which runs south of Placerville, for dumping waste according to the various newspapers that it was reported in.   However, it was John's father Dominico who was the miner.   John was a hotelier.   On the gripping hand, this is approximately 30km distant from and a different river to, the article's location and clearly not this place.  This Raffetto disappears when the dam appears.   There's nothing in the El Dorado history books, which have J. A. Raffetto in depth (from which I got the aforementioned), about a Raffetto on Silver Creek.   This is unverifiable.  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Aerials are no help but topos show a single building at the end of a road.  I cannot get at either Durham or Gudde at the moment but given the misrepresentations of the former we have come across, one cannot presume that either of them says it was a town.  There's just no evidence here beyond a location.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Local newspapers have nothing, there is no cemetery recorded in that area.  There is an old foundation nearby.  The usual indicators of people living there are absent.  There is definitely no significant coverage.  I believe something was there along time ago, probably gold rush related.  But, as of 1901 when newspaper coverage starts it doesn't exist.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just remove links to the redirects or something, don't waste people's time with RFDs and AFDs on what's obviously not notable – what now has the outright lie that this "is an unincorporated community".  Reywas92 Talk 15:06, 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but 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 .  I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Romania .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think this falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE as does any of the other articles in this category.  Halfadaniel ( talk ) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , It is not an EPG because it doesn't list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules.  We should also delete all these articles: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters ?? ?  What is the difference?  Cetateanul Rosu ( talk ) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 14 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 ) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as simply a directory.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:12, 22 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
Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York: Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff.  No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection.  Currently im choosing to keep it up.  If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.  ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [| User | Talk | Cont |] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Snipertron12 : you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open.  And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.  Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section.  David notMD ( talk ) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia.   But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not.  Uporządnicki ( talk ) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 ( talk ) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe.  ruth Bader yinzburg ( talk ) ★ Delete .  There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point.  Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place.  Keivan.f Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TOOSOON , WP:FORK , and WP:OR .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:03, 5 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
Stanislaus Herzel: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC .  Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Germany .  Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:53, 17 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
Catherine Swift: The article has made no progress in years, research shows no potential to rectify.  Spagooder ( talk ) 17:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This seems like an easy call.  No claim to notability and the article lacks supporting citations adequate to justify a Wiki article.  Easy delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:47, 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
Mawlana Murad: Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage.  Article contains too much Original Research .  Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh , India and Islam .  Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 14:45, 3 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!  08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  09:02, 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
Countrycore: FMSky ( talk ) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you Google this term, you will see it is in use.  Plenty of YouTube hits on my Google Search.  When you do search, however, results for Cottagecore (which is also referred to as countrycore apparently) also appear, mixed in with the countrycore music results.  If this is not a viable article, then I suggest redirecting this somewhere, whether it be to country rock, heavy metal, or cowpunk, as this term is used to describe a music genre.  How it's described is now up in the air as this video https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-RUgJ6XkDhE uses the hashtag Metalcore, suggesting countrycore may have a metalcore influence apparently.  Then there's this: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Music_Sound/kXyFAwAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Countrycore%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT396&printsec=frontcover It states countrycore may be in use, but without a clear meaning.  It also lists other stuff like gospelcore, discocore (this would probably be used, alongside dancecore, to refer to hardcore punk influenced dance-punk imo) celticore, indiecore (which does currently redirect to mathcore), etc.  Some of those terms besides indiecore exist as redirects on here.  Hopefully somebody can help out here.  Moline1 ( talk ) 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Terrible sourcing, for instance The New York Times piece doesn't even have the four letters "core" in it, let alone "countrycore".  The Metal Talk article is not even signed, so we have no idea whether the anonymous author has expertise in this topic.  I'm not seeing any strong indication from Google searches that this is a topic.  Binksternet ( talk ) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above, and WP:NOTNEO .  Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Could this be redirected perhaps?  If there's enough info to show this term is in use, but not enough for an article, we could redirect it to a page such as country rock, cowpunk, heavy metal, or hardcore punk.  Of course, let's let some other users chime in first to determine whether a redirect would even be suitable for this article.  If a redirect is not supported, then I'll change to Delete.  Moline1 ( talk ) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be a redirect, unless it's something minor like an alternate name/spelling of something (it's not) you'd need a reliable source that very directly verifies and connects the term "countrycore" to any of your proposed redirect targets.  Without that, the content in the article would would fail WP:V and WP:OR , and be removed.  And without any mention in the article, redirects are just deleted.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 19 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
Elmira Pet Products: Fails WP:NORG .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 19 June 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!  17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Here's some coverage, somewhat routine.  [11] [12] — siro χ o 17:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company/product therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company* .  "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  None of the sources meet the criteria, topic fails GNG.  HighKing ++ 19:24, 27 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
2023 American Premier League: Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED - just because some notable international and former international players are competing, that doesn't make the season itself notable.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket ,  and United States of America .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The league is  sanctioned by the ICC and the USA Cricket .  [1] Vikas265 ( talk ) 13:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of which are demonstrations that this season article passes WP:GNG .  Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only "name" players involved are former internationals who no longer play in top-class cricket.  This tournament is really nothing more than an exhibition event.  Admittedly, the organisers are trying to generate US interest in cricket but that does not mean a season of second- or even third-rate competition deserves an article which is well below the WP:GNG standard.  Batagur baska ( talk ) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable tournament.  No matter which mercenaries... players take part, it doesn't make notability inheritable.  The tournament also carries no status, so in an ideal world it shouldn't even feature on this site.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the arguments given above.  -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Approved Cricket" .  USA Cricket .  Retrieved 2022-02-18 .  Redirect to American Premier League as a WP:ATD .  Nothing here to indicate this meets the WP:GNG on its own.  User:Let'srun 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  Not sure the suggested redirect is a suitable WP:ATD as there is no season information in the parent article.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:23, 18 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
TV Tonight Awards 2022: At best, redirect to TV Tonight .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Websites , Lists ,  and Australia .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R .  Happily888 ( talk ) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge/Redirect to, I assume, TV Tonight .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years shouldn't have articles either.  I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables (and more if others decided to continue adding on), which is undue .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the same reasons discussed above.  I don't see benefit of a merge for the same WP:UNDUE reasons already highlighted.  Similarly, I don't feel a redirect would serve as a useful navigation aid for a reader, given the main article isn't offering information on specific years and the title is closely related to the main article's name anyway.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above JM ( talk ) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Bungle.  Agletarang ( talk ) 04:49, 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
My Jealous God: Boleyn ( talk ) 22:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; only found 2 brief mentions of their existence.  Darling ( talk ) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While I realize that it's more challenging to find good sources for acts that haven't been active since the early nineties, there just isn't enough here to make a case for notability.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:20, 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