hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
America Cultural Center: While it contains interesting details, the tone is generally promotional.  After searching, found a few social media, and mentions with similar names in other countries, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific building.  Article was created by a new user on 4 November 2009 (their only contribution to Wikipedia).  Article was PROD on February 6, 2020, then De-prod on February 9.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Argentina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Several references can be found using its Spanish name, "Centro Cultural América".  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily notable in a Spanish language search, though most of the initial hits are to various Argentinian governmental web sites.  Probably needs to be moved to a more common name, even if in Spanish.  I've linked it to the Spanish article.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:18, 5 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!  06:42, 10 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!  06:03, 17 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
Egyptian e-Learning University: し.  侍.  ( talk ) 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Google Books actually turns up a lot of results for this university; for example, page 77 of this book satisfies all of the notability requirements (independent, reliable, secondary, direct in-depth significant coverage).  I might try to dig up more sources later if I have the time and inclination to do so.  Left guide ( talk ) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Egypt .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Needs cleanup but would be very unusual for a national university to be non-notable.  Have done some searching in Arabic [الجامعة المصرية للتعلم الإلكترونى الأهلية] and can see quite a few sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:15, 14 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 ) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:38, 26 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
Glokk40Spaz: I was unable to find enough coverage from third-party sources and there does not seem to be any notable songs/mixtapes/EPs/albums to speak of.  I found an interview here , an album review from a blog here , and news of him dropping a music video here , but nothing substantial.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:38, 11 January 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) .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This guys is a very popular rapper, he’s had millions of plays and views on YouTube and Spotify.  You feature much smaller bands than this in your site.  This seems like it’s personal.  136.55.57.11 ( talk ) 05:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Not a lot of sources available on this rapper but he meets criteria 5 of WP:SINGER having 2 albums released by Columbia Records .  I see one reliable source by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE covering him here: [52] Despite lack of coverage, he still seems to meet notability requirements although there can't be an abundance of material in the article.  Célestin Denis ( talk ) 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 03:13, 18 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: no consensus
Bialosky Bear: Searches for sources are only turning up "for sale" type results or price guides rather than any actual coverage of the toys.  And even the few paper sources from the era they are from that have been digitized are only ads for them that appeared in magazines/papers rather than coverage about them.  I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting or merging this to the Gund article, but the product line is not mentioned there, there is no suitable content in this article for merging, and my failure to find any significant coverage makes me think that the product line is ultimately not notable enough to be mentioned there.  I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply PRODing this one, in case anyone else has any better luck in locating any print sources from the 70's or 80's.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we can probably keep by WP:GNG , as we should be able to write a start class or better article based on independent sources.  Otherwise merge to Gund as an WP:ATD .  Some SIGCOV here [20] A small amount of SIGCOV here [21] , A short mention here [22] .  Here's some mixed independent/non-independent coverage that will still be useful for the article [23] [24] — siro χ o 22:03, 17 August 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!  20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:10, 31 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
Anandha Ragam (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 22:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : @ Tirishan : there’s a source from The Times of India .  The serial has been remade in more than four languages: Telugu : [36] , Kannada : [37] Bengali : [38] The drama has released and aired more the 200 episodes.  [39] -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 19:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the Times of India source is it describes Premas Rang Yave as a new TV show, not an adaption of Anandha Ragam. So it doesn't show that Anandha Ragam is notable. You have similar problems with the newsorbit article which says the adaption is rumored to be an adaption of Anandha Ragam. At best it is a passing mention of the show. None of the sources are the substantial coverage of Anandha Ragam that you need to show notability . Grachester ( talk ) 19:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines . Grachester ( talk ) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future. [40] -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have already said "keep" once, you don't get to have two ! votes.  Please read WP:TOOSOON .  If these "important updates" happen in the future, the show may be notable enough to have an article.  Until it does, the article should be deleted, per policy.  Grachester ( talk ) 15:26, 10 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!  05:47, 17 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
Brighton & Hove Breeze routes: ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : ... and I've gone ahead at Brighton & Hove (bus company)#The_Breeze_routes .  What's in the proposed target is reasonable enough to have there.  What's left unique at this page (ie: the stops) doesn't need to be in an article.  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 11:12, 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: no consensus
Pilu Khan: 1. References are weak  2. No mentionable award.  3. No significant contribution.  Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , mainly routine coverage or interviews; doesn't fulfill WP:GNG .  ayakanaa ( t · c ) 19:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has dedicated reliable sources coverage such as here and interviews in national newspapers referenced in the article such as here , passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review sources proposed by Atlantic306 vs GNG.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , to Renaissance as an WP:ATD .  The Dhaka Courier article is significant coverage, but the interview based articles do not support notability.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As @ Ayakanaa explains, it fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SUSTAINED , it doesn't fall in line with WP:GNG due to such.  Noorullah ( talk ) 05:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet but leaning toward Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:08, 6 January 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No WP:SIGCOV .  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As a member of Souls and Renaissance , meets criterion #5 of WP:MUSICBIO .  Renaissance is not a suitable redirect target because of his participation in a second independently notable ensemble.  Atlantic306 and SailingInABathTub have singled out the Dhaka Courier article.  There is also Bengali-language significant coverage, such as [1] .  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 20:09, 18 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: no consensus
2015 National Conference League: Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY.  Onel 5969 TT me 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Important: A discussion is already taking place regarding the presence of an article for individuals season of the National Conference League and can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 National Conference League .  There is no point starting another discussion about the same topic.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Aticle was restored from draft space as discussions linked above has not concluded!  Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Competition gets significant coverage from various media across the North of England, and is considered notable enough for the league table to be published on the BBC website .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 02:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:49, 26 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
Cradle-to-cradle design: RGW- and appeal to nature -toned.  Needs academic citations.  Very little improvement over the years.  Unsuitable as a reader-facing article.  Janhrach ( talk ) 09:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment .  Janhrach ( talk ) 09:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has plenty of quality sources and concept seems to have attracted attention in the business and sustainability press (as per cited sources).   The article does need a lot of work.   Jargon and green woo-woo need to be toned down a notch, and unsourced sections should probably be cut.   But there's a worthy article behind all the clutter.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 27 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: no consensus
Brilliant Labs: Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Software ,  and Singapore .  Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said elsewhere, I added categories to it and linked to it elsewhere on Wikipedia.  That should satisfy two criticisms.  Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the three sources are major outlets.  It's not quite scientific, but that seems like it establishes a reasonable basis for being notable.  It's also supported by major investors, although I didn't add those in - not yet, anyway.  I'm debating in my mind how to do it without being promotional.  https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ar-glasses-multimodal-ai-nets-140019767.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20inception%20in%202019,at%20Y%20Combinator%3B%20and%20others .  Rjohnson1980 ( talk ) 14:33, 10 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!  08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes at least WP:NPRODUCT , and probably WP:NCORP .  Besides the Forbes (staff) and Axios articles already cited, The Verge [20] , South China Morning Post [21] .  ~ A412 talk!  01:16, 24 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!  09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Both The Verge and Axios weren't really about the company but the Forbes and South China Morning Post pieces are good and seem to satisfy WP:NCORP .  Editing84 ( talk ) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on 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 .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  The references provided to date all rely entirely on interviews/quotes from company officials and other information provided by the company.  HighKing ++ 13:07, 26 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
Anabella Queen: Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  May be a case of TOOSOON, but this is pretty clearly a promo article.  // Timothy :: talk 07:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Venezuela .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , although created recently by the same editor, there are more sources on the Spanish Wikipedia page.  [21] SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Weak keep, I don't think TOOSOON applies, it's been five yrs.  Regardless, this is typical coverage [22] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more about sources found on other versions of this article that could be incorporated in our version.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want more references on the page, why don't you add them?  tell me !! !  Soy Pau ♥️♥️ ( talk ) 15:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Soy Pau ♥️♥️ , my role here is to assess AFD discussions, not improve articles.  If you have questions about sources, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse .  L iz Read!  Talk!  22:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then do you want sources in the articule?   OK me too.  Then in this days, I am going to add sources for the Page dont be delate.Bye Lynitaa 2.0 ( talk ) 06:54, 18 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: no consensus
Liberty Alliance LLC: AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Christianity , Websites ,  and United States of America .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is met with existing coverage, SNG compliance is optional.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only independent significant coverage I can see is the Ingersoll article, the only other secondary source is the Inc. 5000, which seems to be very trivial (only a few sentences).  I'd welcome a discussion on if it's a similar situation to the Fortune 500 or Michelin guide in NCORP, but at face value it's trivial.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 15:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Was unable to find a reason for this company belonging on the encyclopedia in my searches.  I believe that a lot more SIG should be provided in order for me to change my opinion and fulfill the Heymann Standard .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Reuters reported in 2019 that Brandon Vallorani had sold the company .  The website in the article ( https://www.libertyalliance.com/ ) is no longer correct - that company " addresses the challenges of the next-generation battlespace" There is different organization ( https://libertyallianceusa.com/ ) that is based in Kansas City and is owned by Todd Graves .  The article is about the organization discussed in Ingersoll - and that is certainly significant coverage in a reliable source, so we are halfway to satisfying GNG.  St Anselm ( talk ) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  19:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 21:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added coverage from this article and others I found through my university to the article.  I believe GNG is met.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 21:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sufficient coverage and meets GNG in my honest opinion.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 12:56, 28 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