hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Jean Cook: All I found was this transactional announcement.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:11, 27 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 ) 23:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lots of coverage, but I'm not sure there's enough to suggest a WP:ATD pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:21, 28 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
Anamaria Gorea: The best sources found were Prosport and Népújság , both of which are just squad list mentions.  I also tried "Ana Maria Gorea", which didn't help much.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Romania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:11, 22 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
RK Tacklers: According to WP:NTEAM , clubs are meant to meet WP:GNG but I can find no evidence that RK Tacklers meets this.  Even Danish searches have come back with nothing useful.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 01:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Denmark .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 01:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Left guide ( talk ) 06:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I would have even used PROD for this one.  -- Broc ( talk ) 06:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , no suitable redirect here either per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:47, 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: delete
List of tango music labels: I don't advocate that, but this list in particular is poorly sourced and has few links to existing articles.  331dot ( talk ) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  331dot ( talk ) 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists , Latin America ,  and Argentina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Complete failure of WP:LISTN .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no indication that this is a well-discussed group of record labels.  Nothing like List of hip hop record labels or List of electronic music record labels , which are useful navigational lists at least.  This fails even as a navigational list as only one entry is notable.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 23 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
Battle of Chamkaur (1764): WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible.  Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand.  This article is one of the many, many examples.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing but another article that is backed by religious texts, that too falls under WP: AGEMATTERS .  Not found any RS calling this by the Name "Battle of Chamkaur"-- Imperial [AFCND] 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Jassa_Singh_Ahluwalia#Military_campaigns .  Raj era source is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen.  The page is attributed from one source and it does not attest if it was a battle.  Not every minor encounter, fight or confrontation needs to have a page on it.  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete falls under WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, maybe also WP:GNG.  Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 11:53, 2 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
Institute of Information Technology Bogra: Does not appear to meet WP:NORG .  On second thought, this is probably ineligible for PROD due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Information Technology Bogra(IITB) , but my original reason for deletion stands.  * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Bangladesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:NORG fail.  ( t · c ) buidhe 21:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No effective sources.  There was a report in the Times or Guardian several months ago about the lack of rigourous control of the education sector particularly pop-up education establishments offering degrees and whatnot that not worth the paper they are written on.  I think this is probably one of them.  Outwith that, there is no sourcing.  scope_creep Talk 08:03, 28 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
Lin Fangling: zoglophie 14:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Badminton ,  and China .  zoglophie 14:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unfortunately, the article is not pass WP:NBAD at this point of time.  And there are only 2 references in the article, one of which only lists the results of the competition, and the other reference link has expired.  So my idea is to delete this post for now.  HE YUNONG ( talk ) 07:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and HE YUNONG.  Yup the article is toosoon for now.  If Lin Fangling won international title in senior level (even though outside the NBAD), we can considered the article to be keep.  Stvbastian ( talk ) 08:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Despite not meeting NBAD, I still believe it has some degree of notability as a two-event World Junior Champion.  Maybe move it to draftspace and see if more sources can be added.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:10, 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!  02:05, 10 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
Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana: Somewhere around 1980 someone decided the spot needed to be labelled as a town, in spite of a lack of other buildings other than what turn out to be two very decrepit barns.  Again, I'm not convinced this was a real settlement.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's another wholly unreliably sourced 1-sentence substub from sock-puppeteer Dragonrap2 ( talk · contribs )/ Hissrap18 ( talk · contribs ).   This is an utter waste of our time.   If they aren't claiming CDPs, or giving any non-GNIS information, all of these should just go.  Delete .  Uncle G ( talk ) 03:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - just a church on old USGS maps going back to 1948 .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:GEOLAND .  As others have noted, this is simply a GNIS stub created by a sockpuppet.  No notability here.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I went to the Bienville Parish Assessor's Office's GIS page .  Using their "S-T-R" (Section-Township-Range) search option, I accessed the GIS viewer for section 10, Township T17N, Range R7W in which "Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" lies.  The property lines and property owners shown are those of typical farm and timberland and there is a complete absence of the small commercial and residencal plots that would be associated with a hamlet, village, settlement etc.  There is a complete absence of the roads, buildings, and other infrastricture that would be associated with a small settlement.  The infrastructure seen are logging and access roads and numerous oil and gas well pads.  There is clearly no settlement of any type associated with the Pleasant Hill CME Church.  Paul H. ( talk ) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The burden should be on the editor creating articles like this one to demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND and general notability before it can posted instead shifting the burden to other editors to determine either that it does or not or even is completely imaginary.  Paul H. ( talk ) 02:29, 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
Michael Lord (music): I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject (or, frankly, any coverage).  There is a reference in the article, but it's just album liner notes.  toweli ( talk ) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , United States of America ,  and California .  toweli ( talk ) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] speedy delete as a copyvio of [ [21] ].  The promotional reek of this article about a nn musician is exolained.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is being updated.  The article is informational including a Filmography that is supported by IMDb.  2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105E ( talk ) 19:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105E IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:UGC .  Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the first source macworld is probably the most substantial coverage: 2 whole sentences, stating "Free Download of The Week" which I would say is very different to "Single of The Week".  Allmusic does credit him in places as engineer/instrumentalist but the reviews on those releases don't mention him at all , and even if they did it's not like these are hugely notable albums.  -- D'n'B - t -- 17:37, 6 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
Steve Levicoff: Of the article's six sources, two are e-mail screenshots, and the other four are news articles which mention the subject only briefly.  No substantive, third-party coverage was located.  Historical-idealist ( talk ) 02:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Historical-idealist ( talk ) 05:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Radio , Education , Christianity , California , Pennsylvania ,  and Vermont .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can find one mention of him in the acknowledgments of a book, and a handful of mentions in local newspapers (one line each).  He does not meet NACADEMIC.  There are no substantial sources about him.  Lamona ( talk ) 15:09, 19 February 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!  02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find much even for book reviews.  This is rather brief, the source seems reliable [31] .  I don't AUTHOR is met.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete in terms of WP:RS sources there are only a few passing mentions.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:40, 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: delete
Ronan Flood: Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Pádraig Harrington#Personal life as he has a one-sentence mention in that article, but I think a merge would give overdue prominence in Harrington's article.  Boleyn ( talk ) 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - doesn't appear to have any notability outside of working for Pádraig Harrington .  Notability is not attained only through working with someone notable .  -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per above.  No indication of notability.  Nigej ( talk ) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete he cannot inherit any notability for Pádraig Harrington .  ww2censor ( talk ) 15:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per all above, no notability in own right; crystal clear.  A brief mention in Harrington's article, especially given the family link, is enough.  SeoR ( talk ) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject does not have WP:GNG coverage.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:19, 24 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
Kilgai: Only used by Malkani.  No secondary sources.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 18:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Organisms ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 18:07, 13 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
Fazaia Degree College, Faisal: Continously being reverted by IPs.  BookishReader ( talk ) 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : it's a degree college, not a school.  So cant compare on the basis of WP:NSCHOOL .  Portwoman ( talk ) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Martin Bezuidenhout: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:42, 28 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 ) 19:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most of the coverage just tends to be squad and team announcements.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 29 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
Emesis Blue (2023): Article fails GNG and WP:NFILM / WP:NWEB .  No references in article, BEFORE found nothing.  Tried to draft, but a duplicate declined draft article exists already at Draft:Emesis Blue (2023) , so drafting is not an option.  // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article is a copy-paste move from a draft created in AfC.  The AfC draft was rejected 20 June 2023.  Little seems to be changed from the rejected draft, including lack of citations and lack of proof regarding notability.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - in the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be moved to Emesis Blue .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 02:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was expecting this to be a complete non-entity, but it is actually all over social media and fandoms etc., just nothing that would come even close to meeting GNG.  Given that the film is quite new, better sources might appear at some point, and in that sense draftification could be an option (and would be doable by simply changing the title slightly).  However, this seems pointless as a draft already exists, and that is indeed the 'original' (of which this is merely an ill-advised copypaste move), which can sit in the draft space even if/when this copy is deleted.  As for deletion rationale, per nom (no references, no sign of notability of any flavour).  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If this article can be improved, they can do it in the draft.  If the draft did not exist, I would vote draftify.  Asparagusus (interaction) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Comics and animation ,  and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Concur with all arguments above given the existence of the draft already.  - 2pou ( talk ) 19:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This article has no independent sources, and so fails both notability and verifiability .   Leave the draft alone.   The draft was declined, not rejected.   If reliable sources are found, the draft can be improved and resubmitted.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If the article were kept, a history merge would be necessary because of the copy-paste.   It isn't necessary because the copy-paste should be deleted.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Little context + not a single source.  — the Main Logan ( t • c ) 01:33, 4 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
MIC Allahabad: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no coverage found, fails WP:GNG .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:26, 18 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