hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Kakrail: Does not appear to be a legally recognised, or otherwise notable subdivision of Dhaka .  Sourced only to two blog posts.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article needs improvement.  But here the 10th tallest building of Bangladesh and the markaz of Bangladeshi Tablighi Jamaat Kakrail Mosque are located.  It is a very famous neighborhood in Bangladesh.  ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬 ) 19:16, 5 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!  22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Quick search from Duckduckgo brought up some results.  Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please vote and comment with policy-based arguments - provide links to sources to allow evaluation of them.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment The article no longer cites blog posts.  Six reliable secondary sources have been added, though none contain a significant depth of coverage.  It is not a political unit (not a thana or ward).  The census labels it a community (of 4,564 people, as of 2011).  Whether it's a legally recognized neighborhood or an unofficial neighborhood is difficult to determine.  If deemed non-notable, perhaps it and similarly weak articles ( Kamalapur (neighbourhood) , Segunbagicha , Shantinagar (neighbourhood) , ...) could be merged to a new List of neighborhoods of Dhaka that would give capsule descriptions of all neighborhoods, notable and non-notable.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 18:33, 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
WWVW-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:40, 11 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!  21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Coverage is trivial at best.    ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject.  If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information.  So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham ( talk ) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 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
Alexandr Levintsov: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Poland ,  and Ukraine .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 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!  02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Didi Kasim: In the current content of the article, all of the sources aren't such.  Edit.pdf ( talk ) 06:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Indonesia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:44, 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!  05:36, 26 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!  05:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep .  There's a Google scholar result for an Indonesian journal that has sigcov.  Given that various other sources are able to independently corroborate very basic facts like "editor-in-chief for National Geographic Indonesia", I lean keep.  It would be nice to have a second independent source that was sigcov on its own, though.  — siro χ o 07:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist because right now, this looks like a No consensus closure.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on the explanation above.  I can't find much for sourcing, but it's likely in the native language.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 10 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: no consensus
Santo Tomas, Sonora: A WP:BEFORE search yielded no results, but this may have been tinged by the popularity of Saint Thomas (the man) in the region.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 01:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions .  Pbritti ( talk ) 01:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Santo Tomas is a beachfront community of much more prominence than neighboring pinned locations.  There are several published articles that reference Santo Tomas that are not found linked to the Wikipedia reference.  The Rocky Point Times probably has links to previous articles that I have seen over the years.  Hopefully they or someone will know how to link an article to the wikilinks link to this community.  KBlanko ( talk ) 01:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ KBlanko : Linking is accomplished by placing the url within brackets.  If you can't figure that out, I'll be monitoring this discussion and will gladly perform the formatting for you; just copy and paste the links and I'll do the rest.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:20, 9 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 ) 02:56, 16 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!  05:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND .  There does appear to be a reasonably substantial village by that name (actually Santo Tomás) in Sonora.  It has a sign off the main road.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:27, 25 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
Nicola Belardo: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Italy .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's this source on his post playing career, and a few bits on his playing career also, just worth a weak keep in my opinion.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 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
St Kilda SC: Couldn't find any online either.  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia .  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found surces lik [101] , [102] , and [103] among more sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the first source is good, the others less so...  Giant Snowman 17:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Semi-professional football club playing in state league competition in Victoria .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:02, 19 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: no consensus
Quentin Newcomer: Creator has stated that there are lots of sources, however none of this show any significant coverage.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , United States of America ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 21 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!  22:47, 28 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
Berlin Sculpture-Network: This article has been tagged as unreferenced for 10 years and, while dewiki lists some publications and press releases from the project itself, I haven't been able to find the independent coverage needed to meet our threshold for inclusion here on enwiki.  – Joe ( talk ) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Germany .  – Joe ( talk ) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or alternatively selective Merge to Berlin State Museums .  At least the article is much shorter than the Berliner Skulpturennetzwerk article on German Wikipedia, so it isn't a WP:BLOWITUP candidate!  I can see suggestions that this is an important project, for example journal articles [19] [20] , though the majority of online info appears to be on museum or university websites.  Sionk ( talk ) 14:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 13 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
Riccardo Genovese: All I found was routine transfer news ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.).  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Italy .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/weak keep Leaning towards keep here, heaps of coverage on the subject, although as nom says a lot of it is transactional, however this , and this (although transactional gives a profile) along with coverage here , and the fact that the players career is starting to kickoff now are worth a keep.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:24, 12 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!  22:29, 18 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!  22:58, 25 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
Carrier Air Group SIX: Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3).  Source 1 [62] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010".  Source 4 [63] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all.  In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search.  Toadspike ( talk ) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  Toadspike ( talk ) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings .  Toadspike ( talk ) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject is notable.  WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article.  With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about.  For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned.  Toadspike ( talk ) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coming back to this after Carrier Air Group TEN has been closed, I have made a good-faith effort to locate books by the authors @ Hawkeye7 listed.  "Moroson" may refer to Wilbur H. Morrison, Lundstrom is probably John B Lundstrom, and Hammel is probably Eric Hammel.  These authors have all written a great many books, dozens in total, and I do not have easy access to them.  I cannot be expected to purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of books simply because one person suggested that I may have "overlooked" something in the entire bibliography of three prolific authors.  If Hawkeye7 doesn't come back with a proper citation to a specific book and page number, I think a closer can freely ignore that vote as unfounded and close this as a soft delete.  Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:09, 18 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
Dushyant Dubey: 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG is satisfied since the coverage is significant.  WP:BLP1E cannot be applied here because the subject has gained significant coverage over multiple incidents unrelated to each other.  [9] [10] Centralknights ( talk ) 05:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability , as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists.  Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Indian Express Story is written by a journalist at Indian Express based on original reporting.  Indian Express is considered a reliable source.  The entire article is devoted to Dushyant Dubey.  ✔ Yes The Hindu The reporter is not affiliated with the subject.  The Hindu is a newspaper of record in India.  An entire article is dedicate to this man.  ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully garner some discussion over the source table Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:10, 12 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
List of WNBA Finals broadcasters: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Basketball , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found these from 2023's: [35] and [36] .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves.  So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option.  Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC , who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime , who was an early cable television partner.  BornonJune8 ( talk ) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA.  Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 16 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