hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Reverb Records : Verifiability of existence do not clear the hurdle of notability.  This is non-notable, because it lacks significant, intellectually independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, of which at least one must be broadly circulated media.  Graywalls ( talk ) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Ireland ,  and Oregon .  Graywalls ( talk ) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 29 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!  23:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, WP:NCORP , WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED .  In terms of NCORP and GNG, and following my own WP:BEFORE , I have added all the sources I could find .  All are trivial passing mentions in national newspapers (one single passing mention in The Times (UK) ), fleeting mentions in regional newspapers (INM regionals for Sligo and Drogheda ) and a word or two in music mags (like Hot Press ).  As the org is based in Portland, Oregon, I also looked in The Oregonian , finding only this single source .  In each case the subject is mentioned, in passing, in articles which are substantively about something else.  I can find no in depth coverage to support the text - not to mind supporting a claim to notability.  In terms of NOTINHERITED, a small (<10 employee?) independent label doesn't inherit notability from its customers/partners/whatever.  No more than any other org/business/subject would.  The COI/SPA overtones also do not help.  Mine is a "delete" recommendation.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 14:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Guliolopez' analysis.  ArcAngel (talk) 01:21, 14 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
The Park Northpoint : After a cursory look, I cannot find any sources.  It's not clear this thing even exists any more, let alone is notable.  AntiDionysius ( talk ) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia .  Shaws username .  talk .  17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support deletion.  Certainly fails WP:GNG , and per nom & WP:NEXIST , I also could not find anything relating to this planned park.  — That Coptic Guy ping me!  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Business ,  and Travel and tourism .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete May not have been built, may have, regardless fails sufficient reliable sources.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:28, 23 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
Miguel Eyama : All I found were passing mentions of the subject ( 2018 , 2020 , 2022 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No coverage from third party sources, career restricted to local league only with no further information available.  Svartner ( talk ) 21:49, 19 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 conflicts in Egypt : Follow-up to List of battles in Albania List of battles in Algeria List of battles in Belgium List of battles in Croatia .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and Egypt .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unnecessary index-based article.  Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - List of wars involving Egypt already has all essential ones.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 06:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete poorly created article.  Catfurball ( talk ) 21:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:FORK of List of wars involving Egypt , as pointed out by Abhishek0831996 .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:57, 3 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
Tornado outbreak of June 12, 2023 : It is poorly formatted, with only one section of prose that was copied from Tornadoes of 2023 , and the article goes against the criteria for an outbreak article per the WikiProject's guidelines.  Chris Wx ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Illinois , Iowa ,  and Nebraska .  Chris Wx ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually think it should be deleted.  The reason why is because of there being no sources to use for the event.  Also the copied information could have been revised or not used.  E Tornadoesandcats15 ( talk ) 17:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per all reasons provided in the nomination.  United States Man ( talk ) 03:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – An article is unnecessary, and the date is wrong anyway.  Chess Eric 02:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — per nomination reasons.  Also, creator was blocked indefinately for disruptive editing.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per all of the above.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Merging doesn't make much sense here.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:05, 6 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
Moulvi Syed Qudratullah : None of the references in this article are about our subject.  As per the rules of Wikipedia, notability is not herited and therefore as there is no sign of independent notability of our subject, this article should be deleted.  Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India .  -- Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article is adequately sourced.  See the Bangla Tribune article for example.  It is in the article and it is about the subject which raises questions about the statement "None of the references in this article are about our subject".  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nom notability is not herited and lacks indepth references.  Lankanrhino ( talk ) 22:25, 20 September 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!  22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I could not anything that I would qualify as WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG or any other notability standard.  Jacona ( talk ) 15:27, 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
A. Kaliyamurthy : Was awarded 27 Meritorious Service Entry and 150 Good Service Entry Medals.  Among these, neither the 'Chief Minister's medal for gallantry' nor the 'President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service' are mentioned in the linked "Awards and decorations of the Indian Armed Forces".  BTW, the 'police medal for meritorious service' had 482 grantees in 2008.  Subject then retired and became a motivational speaker.  He spoke - at times a lot.  And there, Ladies and gentleman, our case rests.  Fails WP:GNG as a policeman or as a speaker.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Police ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  One out of 480 recipients for a medal seems rather ROUTINE, not meeting GNG for the speaker position.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Oaktree b , thank you for your message.  I understand your concern regarding the number of recipients for the medal and its relevance to the speaker position.  I'd like to clarify that the selection process for the medal recipients might vary based on specific criteria and guidelines.  However, it's important to note that the medal recipients are not directly linked to the qualifications for the speaker position.  The speaker position's requirements and selection process are usually governed by separate criteria to ensure a fair and suitable candidate is chosen.  While the number of medal recipients may seem routine, it doesn't necessarily impact the selection process for the speaker position.  If you have any specific suggestions or information that could improve the article or make it more relevant, I would be happy to consider incorporating them.  Let's work together to ensure the content is accurate and well-represented.  Please feel free to provide any further insights you may have.  Thank you.  Anandhakesavan ( talk ) 22:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  When reviewing this (before the AfD nomination) I checked the references and also noted the absence of a citation for some of the awards.  Seems to fall below the GNG.  MarcGarver ( talk ) 16:48, 26 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
Rhonda Morman : One source is a resume, another is a PR puff piece (the source is "BNM Publicity Group & Management"), and the third (the only WP:RS ) mentions Morman in passing in one sentence.  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is about all I find, and I'm not sure how RS it is [7] .  I don't see enough sourcing for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:16, 23 March 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 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Staff writer piece [8] , seemingly promotional.  I don't see anything else we can use.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] already voted.  so stricken.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:36, 2 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
Gas leak phone call scam : 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Arizona , California , Indiana , Minnesota ,  and Oklahoma .  wizzito | say hello!  06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A perusal of the deletion policy (DP) suggests that the only rationale to which the nominator might've been referring was number eight, failing the notability guideline's nutshell requirement of "over a period of time", and for me, 10.29 weeks is sufficient.   I recommend keeping the article, unless other DP reasons suggest otherwise.   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep: per Fourthords.  I'd maybe support if there was a more clear reason for deletion.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEWS .  Not sure what makes this more notable than any other similar incident that it even warrants an article.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 17:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With regards to the policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper , I'm not sure which of the four points you're invoking.   Are you saying this article is (1) serving as original reporting, (2) routine news coverage of "announcements, events, sports, or celebrities", (3) unduly biographical, or (4) "celebrity gossip and diary" material?   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion " // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unsure why you're replying on behalf of Beemer69.   Might you have intended to include this in your input at the bottom of the page?   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Six prank phone calls = WP:NOTNEWS ; it also fails WP:NCRIME , "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."  The above fails WP:PERSISTENCE , WP:LASTING .  // Timothy :: talk 03:02, 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: delete
Henrique_de_Bragança : WP:NOTINHERITED - relationships do not confer notability.  All the sources are simply his death notice in Portuguese and have very little to say about Henrique beyond basic details D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 12:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Portugal .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very little is about him specifically.  98.228.137.44 ( talk ) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Death notices and passing mentions in directories are not sufficient to establish notability.  DrKay ( talk ) 10:54, 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
Vinco (company) : Lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Might be a case of WP:COI .  Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Salopek Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Norway .  Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promotional page, the organization is not notable per scope or independent coverage.  -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 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
Raimondo Inconis : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view , and all article content must be verifiable , which usually means attribution to reliable sources .  The way the article currently exists plainly contradicts all these policies and guidelines.
 More strictly relevant to this AfD is notability .  For a standalone article to exist, its subject must be notable, which means there must be significant coverage about it in multiple high-quality secondary sources.  The article currently provides no sources that meet those requirements.  See also WP:BIO for the notability guideline for biographies.  At least one of the sources currently provided was made by the creator of the article for the express purpose of being used in a Wikipedia article, which completely undermines any reliability it might have had (see Talk:Raimondo_Inconis ).
 Note that a (as far as I can remember) substantially identical version of the article was previously deleted under CSD G11 .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , Well when your sourcing is the orchestra, the VIAF and LOC (which are databases), you have an issue.  For being the world famous person he is, there is zero coverage found, like anywhere, nothing in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnewspapers...  The New York Times devotes a whole zero pages to him.  Something is fishy.  Puffy claims and lack of sourcing, it's a delete for me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can’t find anything to support notability.  In addition the article creator seems to have engaged in cross wiki spamming to promote this subject.  Mccapra ( talk ) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - At the talk page , the article's creator claims that he is trying spread knowledge of the contrabassoon.  But since that instrument has been used in orchestras for centuries and already has its own very nice article here, it is far from unknown and does not need to be propped up with a shamelessly self-promotional article for one guy who plays it, no matter how virtuosic he may be.  The self-promotional efforts here and elsewhere are pretty obvious, and perhaps are intended to drum up sales for his book: [49] .  What matters here is significant coverage of his greatness by reliable music journalists and classical music experts, which has not happened.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet WP:Sigcov .  Maliner ( talk ) 07:21, 19 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
Dávid Gyenes : Best sources that I can find in the news are Blikk , which mentions him twice in passing, and Nemzeti Sport , a basic transfer announcement.  All the other hits seem to just be match reports and stats sites.  There is an ice hockey player with the same name but, according to Erste Liga , the ice hockey player was born in Miskolc in 1992, so is clearly not the same person.  I can't find any coverage on the footballer that would be sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Hungary .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 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