hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Abdullah Al-Ghamdi : There appears to be a commentator of the same name according to Koora Break .  My Arabic searches aren't yielding anything even close to decent about the footballer of this name.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as far as I can tell.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article has no notability.  Shadow 345110 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Megan Aubale Epstein : All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases.  Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation.  Tagishsimon ( talk ) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , California , New York ,  and Tennessee .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 23:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and current status. .  The article does not establish the notability of its subject per WP:BIO and WP:GNG .  The references provided appear to be weak and some primary sponsored content, which do not qualify as independent, reliable sources offering significant coverage ( WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  The article resembles a promotional resume rather than an encyclopedic entry, lacking the depth and standard of coverage necessary for a standalone article.  Will say, @ Tagishsimon nom, could have been slightly better.  Reference [1] is a sponsored segment, other sources such as Bizjournals, are a trade pub, that merely mention one award.  I couldn't find any other sources of notability on the subject.  PD Slessor ( talk ) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete using churn for coverage, not independent or truly secondary.  Not notable.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - (1) run of the mill business person; (2) one whole section is unreferenced with any significant coverage , while (3) one point of contention ("counsel") is internally contradicted .  Even if she was notable, it would have to be entirely written from scratch .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Movement Strategies : Clearly does not meet WP:NCORP .  Tollens ( talk ) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Tollens ( talk ) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found except routine database entries and social media, and every single reference in the article is linked to the company.   No independent secondary coverage.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 22:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Kuala Lumpur Cricket Association : Was PROD deleted then restored via WP:RFU .  Single reference added, not enough to fulfill the notability requirements.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket ,  and Malaysia .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Typically, only regional cricket associations in ICC full member states are deemed notable.  Malaysia being an Associate Member doesn't reach this threshold.  That aside, coverage is WP:ROUTINE .  AA ( talk ) 23:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Malaysia is a ICC member and cricket association such as the Kuala Lumpur Cricket Association has been around for many year since colonial rule and is a organisation that is promoting and helping kids through charity work in regards to cricket.  It has many news articles, valid websites and social account and should remain on Wikipedia.  Jana1989sl ( talk ) 01:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But not an ICC full member and as such, a cricket association which would have a first-class domestic team that it runs.  Sadly, it isn't notable in cricketing terms.  AA ( talk ) 09:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  While there is some coverage, it's not enough for a GNG pass and there is no suitable redirect here.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per my previous rationale on the PROD nomination.  Robo Cric Let's chat 07:49, 22 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: delete
Yeborobo : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  No chart history or significant WP:RSs around that indicates a meeting of the MUSICBIO or GNG criteria.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 11:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet Musicbio or RS.  Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 23:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Fidel de Castro : Fails WP:NACTOR .  GNews Archive turns out no reliable results.  GBook search shows another Filipino called Fidel de Castro but this person is a poet.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines .  Lenticel ( talk ) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is all I can find [68] and it's paywalled.  Lack of sourcing; happy to revisit if we can find confirmation otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NACTOR per nom.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:38, 28 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: delete
Race Against Cancer : Drowssap SMM ( say hello ) 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Motorsport .  Drowssap SMM ( say hello ) 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A one-off event that happened twice?  There is no coverage of this race, even in the last decade, only hits are on the phrase.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Considered soft-deleting but better for this to be a consensus delete, relisting for more input.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : In its current form the article seems to be purely promotional.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:43, 23 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: delete
Pahoran : This character isn't notable and should be redirected Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really don't have any stakes in this.  I've just been using some of these AFD discussions to hone my source-hunting skills.  There are some sources that pretty directly discuss Pahoran.  The best-quality ones are in periodicals published by the BYU Religious Studies Center : Religious Educator and the BYU Studies Quarterly , for example.  They're intended as scholarly literature, but written by members of the religion about a topic in that religion.  I'm not sure whether those would be considered independent sources?  Lubal ( talk ) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If these authors publish anything not in line with official dogma, they will lose their employment and in some cases membership to the church.  It doesn't seem like people outside of the LDS-sphere have taken time to write anything substantial yet - implying its notability may not be established yet.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 01:50, 15 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!  20:32, 21 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!  21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I can't find significant independent coverage of any of the *three* topics covered by this page (Pahoran, Pahoran Jr, and King-men).  The article as is isn't much more than a narrative aid to Book of Alma , doesn't seem like there's anything which suggests that there is a stand alone topic here.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 22:39, 29 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: delete
Dewald Donald : All I found was a transactional announcement .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:35, 10 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 ) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not seeing enough to suggest coverage for a WP:GNG pass here, and not sure there will be an increase in coverage either.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with what's written above.  Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 04:55, 17 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: delete
Bake Off Celebridades (season 3) : Was redirected in order to attempt to get better sourcing, but was reverted without improvement.   Since it currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GNG , and per recent ANI discussions, the only alternative is AfD.  Onel 5969 TT me 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 26 March 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!  06:36, 2 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!  05:53, 9 April 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, Salvio giuliano 08:06, 16 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: delete
Pir Junaid Shah Rashdi : I was unable to find any relevant sources.  Charsaddian ( talk ) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Charsaddian ( talk ) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to complete lack of sources.  Personally, I would have gone with WP:BLPPROD first.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lack of sources fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 04:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Farrar Corporation & Foundry : Only sources are not independent.  Fails WP:NORG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and Kansas .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Been on the cat:nn by the looks of it since before 2010 and never been updated.  Reads a brochure article.  No coverage.  Fails WP:NCORP .  scope_creep Talk 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is no coverage of this enterprise in Gnews or Gscholar, might simply be a working business.  No notability found and lack of sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Corporal (band) : FMSky ( talk ) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG, and seems to have a promotional angle besides.  Also, one of the sources is the band's own website, the only other one being insufficient to establish notability.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 12:49, 4 May 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!  06:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : fails WP:BAND, and also SIGCOV, however, (1) the prominence of one of its members, and (2) contemporaneous coverage from both BrooklynVegan, and AV Club Chicago leads me to the conclusion that this band was/is notable enough at a local level to be GNG notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and ORG.  Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Keep vote mentions the lack of SIGCOV, the point about prominate member is covered under NOTINHERITED.  I don't see properly sourced material for a merge, but no objection to a consensus redirect if one emerges.  // Timothy :: talk 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails GNG and notability is not inherited.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:38, 19 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: delete
Miou Miou : Unreferenced, just like the cswiki version.  FromCzech ( talk ) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Poorly-formatted too...  What's the point of creating a Wikipedia article if the creator can't find any sources containing significant coverage?  By the way, I kinda like that you mentioned the state of corresponding article in the subject's original language!  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Actress with this name, nothing about a musical group found.  Literally no sources anywhere that I can see.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As Oaktree b , I couldn't find any coverage about the band and not the actress.  No indication that it meets WP:NBAND .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources.  Waqar 💬 17:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Teals Crossroads, Alabama : – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama .  – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Aerials (and in this case U Alabama has extra coverage) show that a store appeared around 1963-'64; its vacant building is still there, and there might have been another business across the road (now gone).  I can find nothing narrative about the place, and the only non-listing name drops I can find are WRT a tornado that passed through the area, causing no significant damage however, and a cemetery maybe half a mile north attached to a relatively new church.  I have to think this was always just a crossroads.  Mangoe ( talk ) 00:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Barbour County, Alabama#Communities where it's listed as an unincorporated community and maybe add in its co-ordinates so it can be located on maps.  There's inhabited property round abouts and a modern church, but it doesn't look like it fulfills the legally recognised populated place criterion of WP:GEOLAND .  If it was on a State Route or US Highway and the crossroads widely referred to, it could have been a redirect to the relevant road, but here the roads are County Roads.  Similar to Spring Hill , except that place has notable residents and a notable church.  Doesn't seem to be anything of note here though, now or historically.  Rupples ( talk ) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, but it will need to be removed from the "Communities" list unless we have a reliable source that describes it as such.  I don't see any evidence that the surrounding homes are part of, or known as, Teals Crossroads.  – dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Changing from redirect as dlthewave rightly states lack of evidence for the surrounding houses/church use of the name.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete