hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Pagaivanuku Arulvai: Unreleased since 2021.  The contents are well sourced so this article is better draftified .  Per Wikipedia:Notability (films) , Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India ,  and Tamil Nadu .  — Karnataka talk 19:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree not a notable film.  Delete it.  I created this article because someone requested me on my talk page, later regreted for creating this article.  Hyderabadi ( talk ) 02:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as above.  Draftification is an WP:ATD option but I think it's easy enough to recreate if it is both released and asserted to be notable.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 20:25, 7 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
RC Yangiyer: The only source seems to be a forum post written by someone who manages rugby in Uzbekistan .  This would not be a reliable or independent source and searches in Uzbek and English do not yield any decent sources at all.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Uzbekistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:50, 14 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
Lisa Xu: I'm not convinced she meets WP:BIO for her work in fashion or career in nuclear medicine.  Sources 2 and 3 are primary.  This source is just a one line mention.  Source 5 is dead.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fashion ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Promotional page.  Effectively no reliable sources.  Searching via Wiki Library and Newsbank databases I only found a passing mention in Ballarat's regional newspaper The Courier and a passing mention in The Sun Herald .  The page is from 2012 so if she was going to garner notability we should have seen it by now.  Fails WP:GNG , WP:ANYBIO .  Cabrils ( talk ) 21:30, 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in the Dominican Republic: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL .  I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Dominican Republic .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per WP:NOTTVGUIDE .  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already been nominated at an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE and subsequently fails the WP:LISTN criteria.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:02, 15 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
The Vets (company): Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP.  Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Companies , Medicine ,  and Florida .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 12:32, 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
Winfried W. Weber: There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist.  Brandon ( talk ) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management .  Brandon ( talk ) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pass of WP:Prof : citations to work seem negligible.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete : This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF .  While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career.  Waqar 💬 17:08, 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability.  @ BrigadierG : per suggestion by admin.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic.  Desertarun ( talk ) 11:26, 27 April 2024 (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!  23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia isn't a TV guide.  This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:03, 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
Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de Honduras: There are ome sources available, but not in-depth enough or independent.  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  It's not worthwhile to have a whole article that consists of just two sentences, of which the first is obvious from the title.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : this article consists of only two lines, u believe it could be merged with Laborers' International Union of North America .  EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Unsourced and no reliable sources found online.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 10:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Honduras .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 28 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
Body powder: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 08:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , not really any valid reason for deletion given, and body powder seems to be a topic of discussion in the medical field [11] Geschichte ( talk ) 08:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources cited (which I don't have access to) appear to only refer to the subject tangentially; I'm having a hard time verifying the claim that "body powder" is an alternative to talcum powder (more likely that talcum powder is a type of body powder).   The reference mentioned by Geschichte is a conference abstract and therefore not RS.   Since the article is little more than a dictionary definition and does not cite any significant source, this seems like a delete to me.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into talcum powder , if applicable.  Doesn't need to be it's own article.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TheBritinator , that Merge is impossible because talcum powder is a Redirect, not an article.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood, hence why I said if applicable.  Otherwise I'd just say Delete .  TheBritinator ( talk ) 03:37, 3 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
William James Crawford: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Photography , Football , Rugby union ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I see some of his works online, but I don't see anything to suggest notability.  Govvy ( talk ) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unreffed, fails WP:BIO .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unref fails WP:SIGCOV , unless someone can find print sources very quickly.  Bearian ( talk ) 20:05, 29 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
Susan Gilbert: It was recreated in 2014 and a 2015 AfD resulted in a "keep" decision.  The 2015 AfD decision seems misguided in hindsight.  Her entire notability hinges on one statement by her in a CNBC story.  That is not substantial RS coverage.  There is no RS coverage of her aside from being quoted once in a story from 2012, which is not even coverage of her .  Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople ,  and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Yeah I don't get the last AfD either; she was interviewed, so she's notable?  Regardless, I tried her name and "coffee", nothing turns up.  I can't see anything we could use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No significant (in-depth) coverage.  Note that 3 of the 4 of the "keep" comments from the 2015 AfD are from now-blocked users, including 2 sockpuppets.  Neutrality talk 02:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing any significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG .  I can't see enough in terms of reviews to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR either, but would be happy to be proved wrong.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:04, 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
An Se-bok: Simione001 ( talk ) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - meets WP Football notability by playing for a national team, but needs better sourcing.  At best I can find him on the North Korea team list for 1966 FIFA World Cup.  Demt1298 ( talk ) 20:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The problem is there aernt any, hence fails WP:GNG which is the overriding factor.  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Best chance is to find (off-line) Korean sources looking for the name in Korean: 안세복 .  109.37.152.36 ( talk ) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Did you find any?  Delete - no evidence of notability and no available sources passing GNG.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:23, 24 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
Domonkos II, Archbishop of Esztergom: Modern academic works (archontologies) do not list his name among the archbishops.  His name is not included in the provided source Beke, Margit (2003).  I created the article 10 years ago based on Hungarian wiki article.  There, another delete request is ongoing.  Norden1990 ( talk ) 13:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Religion ,  and Hungary .  Norden1990 ( talk ) 13:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- We are dealing with a very remote period.   Are we absolutely sure that the 14th-century source is a forgery?   Does the Hungarian WP article still exist?   Sometimes, it is worth having an article on a person whose existence is dubious, as a place to express that doubt.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article does exist as of 19:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC).  Alfa-ketosav ( talk ) 19:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the source is a forgery.  Alfa-ketosav ( talk ) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete under G7 : article author is requesting deletion and there is no substantial content added by other editors.  I've looked over the hu.wiki discussion (via Google Translate) and it appears that competent people have done a thorough search for sources and found nothing.  I'm prepared to take the nom's word for it that this person is non-existent and non-notable.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 11:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - if the topic does not pass WP:V then the correct outcome should always be deletion.  Please ping me if appropriate verification exists in either the Hungarian Wikipedia discussion or this one.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : a non-existent person Pallor ( talk ) 07:18, 4 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
List of sovereign states in 1143: Clear WP:NLIST fails, with no real criteria, often incorrect or dubious inclusions, and absolutely no sourcing.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] List of sovereign states in 1400 List of sovereign states in 1460 List of sovereign states in 1494 List of sovereign states in 1495 Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete all as anachronistic.  The idea of A state doesn't really exist until after the period when duchies and monarchies and empires start to be supplanted.  Mangoe ( talk ) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Mangoe.  Such lists are tricky enough now, let alone when you get pre-Westphalian.  CMD ( talk ) 08:13, 26 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
Battle of Maikop: No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military ,  and Russia .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin ( talk ) 21:29, 6 July 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!  08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete or draftify .  Very bad (poorly formatted/hard to verify) references (they seem WP:PRIMARY , likely 19th century, and some have vague descriptions such as "Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives"), no interwiki.  My BEFORE only gives hits for 1942 battle of such name, so while I am not saying it is a WP:HOAX it is so poorly referenced as to raise major red flags (think also Zhemao hoaxes ).  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no WP:RS in article or anywhere else, so topic (if it even exists) is not notable; and the possibility of a WP:HOAX or an AI experiment is significant in this case.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agree with what was said above.  I also believe that the sources found here are primary and would not contribute towards notability even if they were to verify the content.  Aintabli ( talk ) 09:21, 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