hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
BCX (software): Most of its material reads like advertisement taken from official website.  AfD is started after PROD tag got removed.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 07:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 07:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NSOFT .  Google search shows only downloads and random forums, no reliable sources.  It's just not notable.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:56, 18 December 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 09:52, 25 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
Erkan Geniş: All the information online I can find about Geniş are mirrors of his Wikipedia article or WP:USERGENERATED content like this bio on turkishpaintings.com.  There isn't a Turkish language Wikipedia entry.  He doesn't have an entry in Biyografi.info (which other articles about Turkish people seem to cite a fair amount).  His article here says he has "been accepted as one of the Greatest 100 Turkish Painters who Ever Lived, announced by the Ministry of Culture of Turkey" - which would be some evidence, but there's no reference for this either, and I can't find any evidence for this list - there seems to be no mention of it on the articles of any of the artists mentioned at List of painters from Turkey (which surely would include many of the "100 greatest").  Indeed, the Ministry of Culture does have some articles about noted Turkish artists, such as Bedri Rahmi Eyüboğlu ( [52] ) but not Erkan Geniş.  Concerned that there might be more sources in Turkish that I can't find myself, I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey .  There, GGT - who has experience with the Turkish art scene - has similarly found little to suggest notability.  In summary, this is an effectively unsourced article about a living person which has lain since 2005 without improvement, for whom there is no evidence at all of notability.  Finlay McWalter ··–· Talk 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Finlay McWalter ··–· Talk 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Finlay McWalter ··–· Talk 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing for a painter found, some sourcing in Gnews but it's all unrelated.  The "100 greatest" description I think is puffy language, perhaps a bit of a fib.  Nothing in jstor, nothing in the NYT.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - All I find in a BEFORE search is Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, IMDb,  YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter and other user-sumitted content rather than SIGCOV in reliable sources.  Fails WP:GNG , WP:NARTIST , WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A page on the Turkish Wiki existed but was deleted.  Three times.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:58, 29 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
Hamilton, Ontario, tornado of 2005: Chess Eric 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete And remove unsourced section too.  98.116.131.119 ( talk ) 20:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:NOTNEWS .  Fails GNG and EVENT, ROUTINE coverage, no WP:LASTING , WP:PERSISTENCE .  // Timothy :: talk 09:43, 23 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
Pha̍k-oa-chhi romanization: The equivalent article was deleted on zhwiki for this reason.  MSG17 ( talk ) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China .  MSG17 ( talk ) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Pe̍h-ōe-jī , as all searches for the characters "白話字" direct me to sources regarding Pe̍h-ōe-jī.  I've found this database from an old discussion about adding Pha̍k-oa-chhi romanization, but nothing else.  Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple romanization systems called "白話字" – see 白話字 for a partial list and zh:白話字 (消歧義) for others.  "白話字" is a natural name for an orthography reform because it literally means "vernacular script".  I don't think that's a good reason to redirect the name of one romanization system to a different one.  I think the article should be deleted (not merged) unless sources can be found.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 14:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:51, 25 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
Mark Allen Gbalazeh: There is literally nothing online.  It's just a random person.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are a couple mentions in the Liberian Observer but nothing approaching SIGCOV for BASIC.  Note it's only been in mainspace for a bit over a week.  It began as a professional profile .  Efforts of editors have turned it into a better article but I still can't imagine now notability would be met here.  — siro χ o 01:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Medicine ,  and Africa .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no RS coverage.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete couldn't agree more with what's already been written.  Has anyone considered that the creating editor could have made a page about himself?  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was made by the individual, the photo is uploaded by Markcino, who also created the article.  Photo says it's a photo of "me" in uniform.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lol.  So what is even the question?  Delete, salt and block.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : So he's a student in medicine?  Founder of xyz company doesn't help notability.  There is no coverage, this is PROMO.  Could have been speedied I think.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Adverse vaccine reactions in pets: Adverse reactions, such as they are, can be decently discussed in those articles.  To be sure, the dogs and cats compilation here is something of a WP:POVPUSH by the article writer who seemed to have written the article with the express purpose of pushing a POV opposed to vaccination of pets generally.  jps ( talk ) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine .  jps ( talk ) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per what I said at FTN: It looks like all the sources deal with cats or dogs separately (not "pets"), and we already have articles about vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination (where the creator of this page has added a lot of the same content already).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is such a WP:POVFORK with the same information from the above articles.  I see no point to having the adverse affects of pet vaccinations, which differ per species, all in one article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support article has guidebook/POV sections as well as uncited sections.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 20:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - it's not entirely bad , but everyone knows in 2024 that we don't make separate articles that synthesizes data and research .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A POV content fork.  Owen× ☎ 00:14, 29 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
Brands Hatch race winners: Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series.  Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Motorsport , Lists , United Kingdom ,  and England .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As the initial creator, I had only created the page due to the size of the page that was on there at the time.  Is it really needed right now, ten years later.  No it doesn't.  HawkAussie ( talk ) 22:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Should be snow delete.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 07:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NOM and HawkAussie .  RegalZ8790 ( talk ) 02:36, 5 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
Derick Sequeira: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG ; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Canada ,  and Nicaragua .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete played only for semi-pro and/or amateur/academy teams.  One international appearances doesn't supersede WP:SPORTBASIC .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question to Anwegmann .  Are thee appearances sufficient?  I'm not an expert, but playing one game (with no goals) is not sufficient to pass WP:FOOTY (see De minimis non curat lex ), but three might be.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Bearian .  There is some precedent here (and further discussed here ) pointing to 20 international appearances as enough to supersede a lack of WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:SPORTBASIC .  I'm all for using international appearances as a measure of notability, as I feel as though football articles suffer terribly from WP:BIAS .  I've made that point clear several times, but Sequeira doesn't really reach any of thresholds I'm aware of, unfortunately.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 19:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Three - probably not.  But three appearances at the U-17 world cup, winning a bronze medal, with some media coverage is another question.  Nfitz ( talk ) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a good point.  Which is to say that I am more than happy to change my vote if we can arrive at some kind of consensus on this.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails SPORTBASIC.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 11:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above discussion.  Thank you for answering my questions.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:48, 30 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
Natisha John: All I have found in my searches is this interview.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Trinidad and Tobago .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 11:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Represents National team and more rerences are available.  Davidindia ( talk ) 12:28, 31 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
Hoërskool Oosterland: Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Found listings, mentions, mill news, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I concur with the nominator, as there are scarce reliable sources available to substantiate notability.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Created in Jan 2024 so would prefer not to close as soft-delete, relisting for further input.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:04, 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: delete
Chillz Frozen Custard: Nothing in gnews.  Some of the sources are local or blogs.  The Guardian source may be considered reliable but it covers 10 restaurants so not particularly indepth.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business ,  and New Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 01:19, 23 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
Estate jewelry: Permastub , WP:NOTDICT .  -- Un assiolo ( talk ) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (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/2024 July 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  The nominator might not have done WP:BEFORE properly.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDICT , and the term is nearly self-explanatory to anyone who knows what "estate" means.   Newly-added references are not about estate jewelry as a distinct concept but different examples of the term being used in different contexts.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NOTDICT.  I can't see this having any chance of expansion.  What more is there to say about the subject?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, just a (bad) dictdef.   The existence of attestations that show that sometimes, jewelry is sold at estate sales, means nothing for notability.   The definitions in the sources are different as well.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:33, 12 July 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
Language (general concept): If I'm not wrong, that makes this basically a much shorter duplicate of the Language page on English Wikipedia, since it is about the same topic.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is just bizarre.  I'm not sure why the editor decided to create an entirely new language article when the English version of the French Langage is just Language.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The reason I created this article is because it describes the same concept as the French-language Wikipedia article ' langage ', which, like this one, is different from the English-language Wikipedia article ' language ', while the French-language Wikipedia article ' langage humain ' is more like the English-language Wikipedia article ' language '.  PK2 ( talk ) 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like the new article overlaps a LOT with the existing Language and Communication articles.  So much of the new article is uncited that I'm not sure moving information from it to the existing pages makes sense either.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 05:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Langue and parole#Meaning of the terms for those who are curious.  Nardog ( talk ) 09:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 02:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an unnecessary fork.  There is no requirement to have the same page structures as other language wikis.  In this case, no matter how fr.wiki arranges itself, in English there is no distinction implied or needed.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the idea is not bad, but does not work.  The existing article Language seems to mostly be about the general concept anyways, and accounting for different conceptualisations.  Also slightly redundant given Langue and parole (cf. Nardog) and Hockett's design features , and others.  It seems to be that there are better articles to place the information in, and it currently does not give me the impression that it works as a topic independent from these others.  English Wikipedia has to mainly follow English, unless there are sources to estabish specific conceptualizations in other languages as notable.  // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the primary Language article.  I am not seeing anything here that would work for a merge or other AtD.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' : as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the primary Language article per above.  // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 31 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
MMA Creative: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and Tennessee .  Kpg jhp jm 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Appears to be a run of the mill company, i googled and checked news, can't see anythling that would make it noteworthy.  25 employees.  Desertarun ( talk ) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (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 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NCORP .  No substantive content.  Puff piece from/on/by a WP:ROTM marketing agency 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete