hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Sport in Manawatū: — Panamitsu (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : reads like a tourism brochure, and lacks sources.  Owen× ☎ 01:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and New Zealand .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agreed with users Wcquidditch & Panamitsu.  Not properly sourced.  killer bee 05:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Reads like an essay.  WP:NOR .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All of the sections except one do not have a reliable source at all.  This article clearly falls short of WP:VERIFY .  ST7733B ( talk ) 09:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This ticks a few boxes of WP:NOT ( WP:NOTDIRECTORY as something like a yellow pages minus the phone numbers, WP:NOTGUIDE as something of a hobbyist regional travel guide, etc).  Even if the subject is notable, this article does not seem like a starting point for an article though I could be proven wrong.  Since it's something of a list, if anyone wants to save for development purposes, I support userfy as well.  — siro χ o 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per all above.  Svartner ( talk ) 03:05, 12 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
Kowa-Oto: With the lack of sourcing, I wouldn't propose a merge, but there could be redirect targets such as Chunsoft as a possible WP:ATD .  It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable based on the current state of sourcing.  If a WP:BEFORE for WP:NONENG sources comes up with something, happy to change tack on this one.  I'd suggest not merging - there's nothing to merge, given that the content is unsourced.  Better to start from scratch.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - All I found were press releases ( here's one on 4Gamer ), nothing indicating notability.  I was unable to find any good coverage on Google or Archive.org.  Waxworker ( talk ) 16:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:32, 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
Source Four: microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above, or because they are related and show no notability: Electronic Theatre Controls ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Source Four PAR ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Products .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Previous deletion logs of Electronic Theatre Control , and Source Four .  May qualify for CSD.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sourcing is patents and press-releases or industry mags?  Nothing I'd consider keeping, and I can't find mentions of this lighting system.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They talk about it here, but it's simply captions to various diagrams or photos, nothing I'd call extensive [16] Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Source4 PAR article links to several books which (at least to me), seem pretty independent...  I'm sure they could be used in the Source4 article as well.  AriTheHorse 22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, fair.  But the advertising language can be fixed, right?  I'll see if I can find any secondary sources...  AriTheHorse 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Out of the three, the Source Four PAR article seems to have the least number of problems, it should probably be kept.  Also, just to clarify, notability is related to the subjects' prevalence in reliable texts, not in real-life?  AriTheHorse 22:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Akorede Alli: Cabayi ( talk ) 09:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep : my vote : he's a very well known personality.  Portwoman ( talk ) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Portwoman , this is a discussion, not a vote .  Do you have any significant coverage in reliable , verifiable , independent sources to support your assertion that he is well known?  Or, more to the point, that he is notable ?  I was unable to find any when researching before this discussion.  Cabayi ( talk ) 14:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER .  All of the sources cited in the article are interviews and aren't independent of him.  One of the sources called him a "seasoned" director without giving evidence of this.  All of the sources are interviews about the subject talking about a single film that doesn't meet any criterion outlined in WP:NFILM .  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  02:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  He fails WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER .  BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 05:49, 30 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
Massacre in Bashlybel: No neutral or reliable sources in the Massacre section for the actual massacre (The NYT source is for detached background info).  Only sources actually describing the massacre are "azertag.az" or "Armiya.Az".  The UN doc was submitted by "Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations"; it does not actually contain claims made by the UN.  - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 07:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Armenia ,  and Azerbaijan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  Mostly WP:OR and unverifiable content.  Archives908 ( talk ) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well, this is interesting.  First and foremost, I'd like to get some guidance as to the best policy to follow here, because much as I'd lean towards deleting this clearly skewed account, I also think it appropriate that WP should at least have an article noting the potential existence of a thing.  'Your freedom fighter is my terrorist' and although I completely agree (having spent some time combing through the sources) that the sourcing is 100% totally skewed to an Azerbaijani nationalist narrative, that narrative in of itself has some notability in an overall appreciation of the conflict and the war of words that surrounds it.  Perhaps this and other similar conflicts you have nominated for deletion should be included in a section in, say, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article and, given that, I could support deletion of this 100% NPOV article.  But to erase something simply because it's one sided seems, well, one-sided.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - very biased to a certain point of view, with very few of the sources indicating that this specific attack happened.  Maybe it did, but little independent coverage.  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per norm.  -- HistoryofIran ( talk ) 14:04, 31 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
Hamuchtar: Unsourced.  scope_creep Talk 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Theatre ,  and Israel .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are two pieces about him in Haaretz [2] [3] but that's not enough (and certainly doesn't reflect the content of the article) Ascelyn ( talk ) 00:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The references in English need improvement, but this artist is definitely notable in Israel, and the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia has more sources.  -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk ) 10:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets examine your assertion for this WP:BLP .  This has a single ref which is a PR interview.  Lets look at the other references.  Looking at the Hebrew Wikipedia , the article doesn't have a single reference.  What it does have is lots of external links.  They are not WP:SECONDARY sources.  First one is IMDB.  Is is non-rs.  Second is Discogs.  Non-rs Third is the Mooma social media site.   Non-rs Fourth is bandcamp which is non-rs.  Fifth is youtube social media link.   Non-rs Sixth and sevenths are the same two references identified above.  Eighth is another interview.  So not one secondary source amongst the lot of it.  Typical of somebody that barely known.  On youtube they subject only has 84 fans indication no social media presence. .  The are non-notable.  scope_creep Talk 10:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As sourcing currently stands there's insufficient to pass any of the notability guidelines.  Agree with Scope creep's evaluation of the Hebrew Wikipedia sources.  Open to changing my opinion should better souces be unearthed but a quick search hasn't yielded anything of substance.  Rupples ( talk ) 15:30, 3 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
Takeshi Utsumi: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as fanboy spam.  How on earth has this been around since 2006?!?!?! A search on Google scholar yields a number of papers by someone with a similar name, and a couple by this subject discussing his own work, but I don’t see anything third party about him at all.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable as a scholar or GNG as far as I can tell.  The page is also very promotional.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless BIO can be improved to make notability apparent.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  Fulbright alone is not enough for automatic notability, the only plausible form of notability is GNG, the sources listed in the article are non-independent (and mostly deadlinks), and searching did not turn up anything better.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:25, 27 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
SecurityScorecard: Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable.  Brandon ( talk ) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software .  Brandon ( talk ) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom and WP:NORG .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP .  As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP ).  However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage.  Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital").  Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and the analysis conducted by Epicgenius.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 19:28, 2 July 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 ++ 17:02, 5 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
Boulder Magazine: Only source is to itself.  Seen several attempts to add promotional content.  Taking Out The Trash ( talk ) 01:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - agree with nominator's notes that this magazine has no source but itself, which seems odd.   It's online only, and the publisher DueSouth Publishing, LLC has other online magazines.   Other than that, I'm not sure there is anything out there on this magazine or its parent company.  Boulder Magazine online site .  — Maile ( talk ) 01:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Colorado .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A search brought up no secondary sources on this magazine.  It's not notable.  Cortador ( talk ) 21:34, 17 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
Leandros Lillis: A further article on his college football performance merely mentions him by name [14] I also note the link to an interview in the article, which is now sadly dead.  I do not think that this would change the outcome of my assessment though.  As such the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT due to the lack of significant coverage about the subject.  GGT ( talk ) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cyprus .  GGT ( talk ) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I checked to see if he had any WP:SIGCOV in English due to his college career but couldn't find anything decent.  Searches in Greek brought nothing better than what the nominator has already presented.  Sadly, a lot of these Cypriot news sources just copy and paste from the club press releases so the transfer announcements very rarely have any worthwhile independent content, even for players like Lillis, who have played a lot of times at the professional level.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:46, 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
Marvin Santana: All references are from the same time period of approximately 30 days and written in promotional tone which indicates a possible press campaign and/or churnalism.  The LA Weekly reference is clearly marked as a partnership article and not staff written.  A WP:BEFORE found nothing better.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Dominican Republic -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO, sources are PR or not helpful.  I can't find sources for this businessperson.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep The sources listed demonstrate his work on bodegas.  He also has coverage in spanish sources.  103.244.242.150 ( talk ) 22:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete subject is lacking in-depth, independent coverage.  Mooonswimmer 12:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Humberto Bruni Lamanna: The only confirmation I could find in reliable sources that he exists is a passing mention in this paper about his father , and no confirmation of any of the claims made of his performances and inventions.  His father es: Blas Bruni Celli seems notable, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Venezuela .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , non-notable vanity page.  Astaire ( talk ) 21:20, 18 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
The Complete New Zealand Music Charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations compiled by Dean Scapolo: Fram ( talk ) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Music ,  and New Zealand .  Fram ( talk ) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , nothing to suggest that this is a notable work.  It's apparently self-published, as the article itself suggests; Maurienne House has published a total of five books since 2007.  One passing mention ("books recently published") on JSTOR, 6 citations according to Scholar.  Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only hit I get is a listing from the National Library of ZN, for copyright I suppose.  I can't find critical reviews (nor any listing of any kind) for this book.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability thresholds are not met, including the WP:NBOOK criteria.  The book is valid as a reference source ( this Audioculture article references the book and Scapolo's research, and uses it to compile a list of New Zealand's record charts in the 1960s, suggesting that it is a good source), but it doesn't meet the threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.  The article creator's recent comment on the talk page suggests they may have thought they needed to create the page in order to cite it as a source, which is not the case (I've tried to clarify, hopefully clearly!).  Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just spotted that the article creator has left comment on the talk page for this deletion discussion .  He has linked to the Goodreads and bookstore pages for the book, which don't help in establishing notability .  Again, this is not to say that the book isn't a useful source in its area, but simply that it doesn't meet the high notability threshold for an encyclopaedia.  Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 04:36, 15 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
Alexander Robinson (Liberian footballer): Simione001 ( talk ) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not enough information or citations to prove notability.  I also see, yes it does fail WP:GNG .  SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 13:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete