hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Shalini Passi: Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Starofearth ( talk ) 04:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , India ,  and Delhi .  Starofearth ( talk ) 04:02, 1 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!  06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The sources seem to be good to pass, but I haven't done a thorough analysis.  I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement for MASH, her org.  Nominator has been indeffed for covert advertising (regarding Ohmium ), but that seems completely unrelated to this.  SWinxy ( talk ) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are enough sources in the article that appear to establish significant coverage.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:23, 22 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: no consensus
David Beisel: There are few db style entries for the listings, but in my view they do not reach the threshold for biographical notability.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , United States of America , California ,  and North Carolina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 21 October 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!  23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per the reasons presented.  Nothing significant found about him.  AllNotAll ( talk ) 18:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to be very notable based on the coverage: [4] , [5] , [6] .  Meets WP:GNG .  76.64.163.41 ( talk ) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't ping you guys since you don't have accounts, but the suggestion that the person winning scholastic sporting competitions in Canada from 2003-2008 is the same as the subject, who claims to have co-founded and sold a company in 2002, seems... highly dubious , to put it lightly.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Maliner ( talk ) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep he has been attributed to developing the concept of social commerce since the year that page was created in 2007 [7] 38.104.7.174 ( talk ) 17:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not an independent reliable source that address the subject directly or in-detail.  We need enough stuff from those sources to actually write an article from them Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:14, 12 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: no consensus
Tony Clavier: Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Religion ,  and Christianity .  Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 13:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Arkansas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment well not quite.  He was the primate of the Anglican Church in America until his resignation in 1995.  Additional sources: [57] [58] -- Jahaza ( talk ) 03:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Does that mean he was closer to "good mates with the Archbishop of Canterbury" than "some vicar in a church"? MNewnham ( talk ) 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, quite the opposite, given the Anglican Church in America is a splinter church that isn't part of the Anglican Communion. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:26, 22 February 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!  07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Episcopal bishops, like Catholic ones, almost always have enough sources for notability (though sometimes the sources are offline), and this one seems if anything particularly notable. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Moriwen : That is the case with bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and other Episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion .  However, I have just corrected the article to reflect the fact that the subject is not an ECUSA bishop but is rather part of a Continuing Anglican denomination.  Unlike bishops of the Anglican Communion, bishops of obscure splinter denominations cannot be assumed to be notable.  Graham ( talk ) 07:26, 4 March 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!  09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] : Keep per reasoning by @ Moriwen and @ Jahaza .  Ominateu ( talk ) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 09:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Shock (troupe): It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.  Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right.  They were known only by association.  They released two singles, neither of which charted.  Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe .  CycloneYoris talk!  08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music .  CycloneYoris talk!  08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The basics of this can be summarized in a few sentences and sourced to The Guardian , "... the burlesque pop band Shock. They supported Gary Numan at Wembley, performed at the Hacienda and did an eight-night stint at the Ritz in New York, where Grace Jones, Shields and Yarnell and Billy Idol came to see them play."  Several possible articles exist to merge the basics of this into, the best being probably founding member Tim Dry , but there are also related articles on members Barbie Wilde and Carole Caplin , along with Tik and Tok , a later project.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:36, 8 March 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!  07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment: There is at least a brief mention in the book "Mime into Physical Theatre: A UK Cultural History 1970–2000."  All I can see is a preview, so it's hard to say how much coverage is given.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: And redirect to Tik and Tok , their later project, which already has the basics of this, and some additional references about their later career.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 23:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Corné Weilbach: There's a couple sentences here .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:27, 12 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 ) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's also this along with what we already have, just about worth a weak keep in my opinion currently, especially as a young player who's career is starting to kickoff.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe go back to draft and try to look/add more contet here and then resubmit.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:41, 23 May 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!  22:43, 26 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: no consensus
Irie Papuni: Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here.  Draftification is a suitable WP:ATD if deemed not also .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:40, 10 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!  22:28, 16 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!  23:03, 23 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: no consensus
Blended threat: Walt Yoder ( talk ) 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blended threats are a real and present danger to homeland security.  This page is meant to educate readers on the topic of blended threats.  What suggestions do you have to improve the page?  MayyaJ ( talk ) 12:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I believe this article is an attempt to describe Hybrid warfare , specifically a combination of cyberwarfare and physical attack.  However the article is poorly written WP:Synth , listing isolated incidents which are mostly just cases where a cyber attack had physical side effects.  Yes, ransomware attacks have caused physical disruptions but there is no indication that these were intended to cause physical problems as opposed to being simply a consequence of modern highly connected society.  Also all the examples given are from the US and do not list any of the examples from the Middle East or Ukraine.  MKFI ( talk ) 09:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is RS which WP:NEXISTs on the topic.  Mastering Information Technology , Textbook of computer Science , UTM Security with Fortinet , DOJ report warns of escalating cybercrime, 'blended' threats .  And there is much more WP:SIGCOV to be found.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE .  ✗ plicit 00:31, 1 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: no consensus
Bibriti Chatterjee: In general, TOI is unreliable when discussing films and the individuals who make them.  fails WP:GNG .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 02:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 6 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!  03:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I am satisfied that this individual meets WP:NACTOR guidelines.  There are two roles in wikilinked movies that indeed appear notable, and additionally, I found reviews of a non-wikilinked movie, Ebhabei Golpo Hok in the Telegraph and the Indian Express , suggesting that movie may be notable.  Further queries for more movies turn up more likely hits that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES.  — siro χ o 06:39, 26 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: no consensus
David Graham (Kansas politician): No indication of notability.  Primefac ( talk ) 07:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America .  Primefac ( talk ) 07:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not yet notable per WP:NPOL .  Can't find SIGCOV, just routine local coverage, and inclusion in brief mentions of candidates.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No credible claim to notability.  Running in an election and receiving 2% of the vote certainly isn't one.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing beyond WP:ROTM election coverage, nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Shaws username .  talk .  13:05, 20 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: no consensus
Joseph C. Kush: MicrobiologyMarcus ( petri dish • cultures ) 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment leaning Keep .  There are three highly or moderately highly cited papers in GS with a relatively slow drop off (360,214,121,94,78) and GS is estimating an h -index of 21; I don't know where that falls for this field.  His CV [7] is listing (co-)edited books Technology implementation and teacher education: Reflective models (Information Science Publishing; 2010) and Intelligence Quotient: testing, Role of genetics and the environment and social outcomes (Nova Science Publishers; 2013), the latter as sole editor, although we have tended to undervalue editor contributions.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:43, 7 October 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!  18:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would help things if the nominator offered a fuller deletion rationale that demonstrated they had done a BEFORE rather than simply typing one word that doesn't distinguish what specific problems exist with this article and its sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:54, 27 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: no consensus
Sparsh Srivastav: Rydex64 ( talk ) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Rydex64 ( talk ) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Fairly meet WP:NACTOR with lead/significant roles in multiple notable productions.  Added a few things to the page for verification. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No Independent sources and the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR , also failed WP:GNG .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 08:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can I ask why you state that he does not meet WP:NACTOR ?  He had various lead roles in notable productions that received coverage and that's the requirement.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 9 March 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 ) 17:41, 14 March 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!  20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Krzesin Landscape Park: Fails WP:GNG Crainsaw ( talk ) 11:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions .  Crainsaw ( talk ) 11:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete cannot find sources to establish notability — Karnataka talk 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't know about you, but in my country, an 85 square km park is a big park, especially in densely populated Europe.  This satellite image gives a sense of just how big it is -- is the large forested area in the middle between different villages. There's a 92 hectare area in the middle that's the Rezerwat przyrody Młodno ("Młodno Nature Reserve"), a protected peat bog. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this official government link to a page about the park is sufficient to establish notability per the special requirements of "Notability (geographic features)" .  It's legal recognition by the government.  It does not have to be independent of the government since this is a geographic article.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 15:19, 16 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: no consensus