hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (non-governmental organization): From what I understand, it's basically a sham and keeping the article is giving it undue importance .  The counter-argument is that it's a notable sham, but I think an AfD on the matter makes sense.  Pichpich ( talk ) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Science ,  and Ukraine .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There was a previous AfD in 2019 .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh.  Sorry I missed that!  So the consensus was that it was indeed a notable sham.  I suppose consensus can change, so I'll let this run its course unless it becomes a case of WP:SNOW .  Pichpich ( talk ) 20:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there is a Ukrainian article on the subject but English coverage does not meet article quality.  Whether the subject is a "sham" or not is also not clear from the English article currently, it uses ambiguous and unencyclopedic language such as describing "funny" "structures" based on a couple foreign language sources (which potentially may not be reliable).  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Nothing has changed since the last discussion.  " the consensus was that it was still a "notable sham" and should be chronicled as such. " Wanderer777 ( talk ) 08:47, 30 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!  21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have no ability to search on this in Ukrainian, but as the only result that turns up in an English source is this Wikipedia article, I have to conclude that we do not have sufficient sources to include it here.  As it is, the article is weak on content and therefore is not providing much in terms of encyclopedic information.  Lamona ( talk ) 17:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Sources don't have to be in English so to resolve this we need source analysis of non-english sources too Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  02:38, 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
2023 Atacama Region teachers' strike: Little coverage.  Could well be merged into the Education in Chile article.  Also this has been created by Dentren's suspected sockpuppet Guariflor.  Bedivere ( talk ) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions .  Bedivere ( talk ) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has some sources, also if it affected many students it might be notable.  Geardona ( talk to me? ) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it warrants it's own article.  Perhaps create one for the Local Public Education Service and merge it.  Bedivere ( talk ) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Atacama Region .  The sourcing is routine news coverage and does not indicate notability, but there is information relevant to the target article.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this event is not notable enough for a separate article (which I haven't checked yet), then it's certainly not important enough in the history of the Atacama region to appear in that article.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 21:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft : It has sources but NOTNEWS and LASTING are concerns.  I think drafting and seeing if something LASTING appears.  // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 15 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!  23:04, 15 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!  22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:41, 23 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
Adjustierung: Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic.  We already have military uniform ; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that.  -- Beland ( talk ) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Beland ( talk ) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the words listed could just be added to Glossary of German military terms .  -- Beland ( talk ) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion , Austria ,  and Germany .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 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!  20:59, 3 June 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!  21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge terms into Glossary of German military terms as per Beland.  Ingratis ( talk ) 21:57, 17 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
Munir Khan: What's given here for sourcing is simply confirmation of the arrest.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article was created for POV anyway.  I concur with above.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable fraudster.   The original version of the article [15] shows a pretty clear attempt at a promotional article.   Given other articles created here and on Simple, article creator is quite probably a undeclared paid editor .  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per our rules because the sources establish this person is clearly notable.  Comment enjoy keeping because the subject and his paid editor will rue the day they created this article.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GNG as a notable health fraud. -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 16:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a dispute about the notability of this individual whose notability rests on being a fraudster.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep looking notable fraudster to me per the sources provided in the article.  Googling Munir Khan fraud reveals [16] , [17] , [18] [19] .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG per above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:06, 17 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
Turkish Women's Basketball League: Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, just a few mentions, to show it passes WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Basketball ,  and Turkey .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searches in websites themselves do reveal some sources like match reports and announcements.  Sadly I don't have the time to go through them to see what really counts towards the GNG so I'll just drop it here if anyone else wants to take a look: Hürriyet , Milliyet , Sözcü , Sabah .  ~Styyx Talk ?  14:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article, as a second-level women's basketball league affiliated to FIBA Europe, has significant reliable sources to meet GNG.  As the comment above says, news, announcements and reports may be found in several sources.  Oltnilhn ( talk ) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom, no evidence of passing GNG or ORG.  The above is just routine sports news about games and individuals, nothing that shows notability.  BEFORE showed database, routine sports news, and primary, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  I agree with Oltnilhn rv to redirect, this should not be a redirect, because nothing in article is properly sourced.  Oppose Draft because nothing will change in the next six months that will show notability and this would just be a backdoor to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk 02:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Tim.  Aintabli ( talk ) 03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the league seems to be getting considerable coverage in major Turkish media, such as Milliyet [5] and Hürriyet [6] .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 08:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per source bundles above.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 22:21, 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
Remote (band): While both of the members seem to be notable, I can't find any significant coverage of the band.  Previously deprod, but the user who deprod it did not add any source as well.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what little can be salvaged into Roger Eno .  The notability of Miromusic looks very questionable too.  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Brian Eno : Fails WP:NBAND .  Criteria 1: I cannot find any reliable sources reviewing the band or its album.  Criteria 6: Miromusic does not appear to be independently notable (that article should probably be PRODed).  None of the other criteria apply.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBAND .  Brian Eno is obviously notable.  Miro is also notable under criterion 2 of NBAND because they've had at least one song chart in the UK.  Thus, Remote meets criterion 6 of NBAND.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:58, 21 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
List of Czech films considered the best: No significant coverage, no secondary sources for almost all the individual lists.  Editors are also advised to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST .  Jovian Eclipse 19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep, but completely rewrite .  I would say get rid of the "Genre" section and rather than copying all of the individual lists, pare it down to perhaps the ten or twelve films that have shown up most regularly on the collective lists, as with List of films considered the best .  Alternately, redirect to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic and add the refs in this article as needed.  BD2412 T 21:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This should, at minimum, redirect to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs cleanup, but passes CLN/AOAL // Timothy :: talk 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak-merge salvageable content to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic , or keep once cleaned up at original page.  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 00:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 13 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
Karthigai Deepam (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  @ Tirishan : The drama has released and this show has reached millions of watch TRP rating.  [11] The drama has a strong fan base.  I think this is enough for notability.  [12] interview from karthigai deepam serial actress Arthika.  [13] -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 18:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ from article creator. From the sources you just listed, in my understanding TRP itself would not satisfy WP:RPRGM , and the interview does not contain enough WP:SIGCOV on the show itself. Tirishan ( talk ) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] from delete nomineter @ Tirishan : . The big problem in Tamil show, all sources are in Tamil language. what can i do :( -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is the content inside the sources, language isn't the issue.  In my opinion the source contents don't meet the standards I listed.  Tirishan ( talk ) 17:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why don't you help standards listed of the article?  :) P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 19:30, 5 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 ) 00:09, 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!  05:51, 17 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!  06:26, 24 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
Christopher Muneza: would've been speedied as WP:G11 if it wasn't put up for AfD.  Pfomma ( talk ) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (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/2023 December 8 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Rwanda .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The nominator is the article's creator and they actually added an undisclosed paid editing tag (

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Battle of Doljești and Orbic: Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Moldova ,  and Romania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 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!  22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cocobb8 : the Romanian Wikipedia page for this article has source(s) by the looks of it.  Are those sources sufficient for notability?  (I don't know Romanian so not too sure myself).  Cheers.  Dan the Animator 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dantheanimator : perhaps?  I'll leave it up to other to check that .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename as Battle of Orbic.  I was able to find sources for Orbic but less so for Doljești.  The Romanian page is also only for the Orbic battle whereas the Battle of Doljești redirects to the page for Stefan the Great.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it.  These are two different battles, both notable, the tendency in current history being to separate them temporally (about 13 years) and geographically (in different counties).  There are well-documented sources on both of them, even if the conditions under which the battle of Doljesti was fought are not very clear.  Clearly the article should be renamed, its real subject being the Battle of Orbic.  In short, the two battles are defining for the beginning of the reign of the most important ruler of the Principality of Moldavia, Stephen the Great .  Accipiter Gentilis Q. ( talk ) 13:53, 22 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
World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles): There is a possible redirect target for World Heavyweight Championship (Pacific Northwest) but this was removed and prod declined.  I wouldn't merge as this has no referenced information.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : there's also another article called World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles version) .  At first glance, it's unclear to me whether or not there's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK situation going on.  Left guide ( talk ) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: See also this comment by an IP address, that may shed some light on the context.  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 02:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 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!  20:54, 20 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