hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
United Nations Office: Please, someone tell me if UNO are an identifiable thing that exist.  Remsense 诉 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no third-party sources cited.  The published text fails WP:GNG.  Also the content conflates two concepts: one is the Office of the United Nations, which is an incorporation concept comparable to The Crown ; and physical office space for clerical work and meetings.  Either of those could have Wikipedia articles but it is beyond the scope of AfD to develop Wikipedia articles from content which seems unusable.  Bluerasberry (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my comments on talk .  Alternatively, create a disambiguation page: ...at Vienna , ...at Nairobi , ...on Drugs and Crime , ...for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs , etc.  But only those with "United Nations Office" in their names: UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, etc. aren't correctly called United Nations Offices, and certainly not with a capital O. Moscow Mule ( talk ) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per what's written above.  Lack of independent sources, redundant content, etc MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:25, 15 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
Peter Farley-Moore: Sources in article are not independent (e.g. this one and/or don't mention him (e.g. this or this ).  Fram ( talk ) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and England .  Fram ( talk ) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found some additional sourcing (i.e. reports of appointments in the Church Times [3] ) and added that to Archdeacon of Hackney , but there's no substantial coverage for Farley-Moore himself that I can find.  Delete Clear delete on lack of RS coverage.  This one fails every measure.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It's nice of the editor to create an article for his parish priest, but it clearly fails WP:NBIO.  Zacwill ( talk ) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Zacwill I created this article about the recently appointed Archdeacon of Hackney not just out of the goodness of my heart! but because it seems to me that most holders of this post (as too other similar ecclesiastical offices) feature in Wiki.  However, apart from Who's Who (which understandably is not a favoured source), the Ven.  Peter Farley-Moore appears to have done a great job of hiding any light he may (or may not) have under a bushel!  Nonetheless, I trust that this biographical article may be kept (at least to allow enough time for Wikipedians to contribute accordingly).  Thanking you in advance for your co-operation.  Best Primm1234 ( talk ) 20:08, 4 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
APSIG: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 29 May 2023 (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 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless independent coverage can be found.  I was unable to turn anything up with a quick search.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:05, 18 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
Nekoglai: Thoroughly nonnotable blogger who got 15 minutes of fame after being arrested in Russia - Altenmann >talk 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia , Ukraine , Moldova , Crime , Police ,  and People .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep seems notable.  Barryalive talk 12:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - the article itself isn't great and needs improvement but I think the subject is just about notable enough.  I found some coverage from various news sources: [66] [67] [68] [69] (last one in Italian).  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It does not matter how many sources you find; they are all about WP:SINGLEEVENT , and a stupid one, too.  Which will be forgotten next year.  - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, I change my vote to Delete .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 22:43, 21 August 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!  08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  So, we have clear issues with WP:CRIME here, and we have a WP:PROMO article.  Now, it may be possible that the event in question is notable, I haven't checked for WP:PERSISTENCE , but given the PROMO issues this article can't contribute to such a hypothetical article, so we have no choice but to delete.  — siro χ o 08:18, 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
Erin Sweeny: 2 of the 4 sources are primary.  And there is no inherent notability from being in the 100 Women (BBC) .  Lacking WP:SIGCOV in third party sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Psychology ,  and Australia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Mention (singular) in the BBC 100 Women article on the BBC site, but that's all there is.  She appears to be an employed social worker, doing her job.  Nothing else I can find to support having an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG by the looks of it. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:05, 23 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
Chak Dhothar: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Punjab .  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:42, 15 September 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!  00:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Keep - WP:BEFORE would have provided you with more information: Here is a link to the list of sources i found: https://sites.google.com/view/souresfordhotharindia/home PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] changed link to: https://sites.google.com/view/souresfordhotharindia/sources-for-dhothar-village-india PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and/or Redirect to Jagraon - the above link is 404 and the above ! vote is essentially an empty vote.  The census is a primary source, gives only statistical data, and does not confer legal recognition.  The location given in the article shows empty fields.  Notability is not inherited, so the link about the first Sikh in the Canadian airforce, which contains no actual description of the village and is from topnews.in, cannot confer notability.  FOARP ( talk ) 08:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i changes the link here it is: https://sites.google.com/view/souresfordhotharindia/sources-for-dhothar-village-india PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These appear to be all aggregators and mirrors except for the census sources we've already discussed, not reliable sources.  FOARP ( talk ) 07:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not meet GNG, which cannot be established with the primary sources above.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 07:20, 28 September 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!  02:41, 29 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
List of television programmes broadcast by CITV: Wikipedia is not a TV guide or list of former station programming.  // Timothy :: talk 04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the nom, this does not meet the WP:NLIST .  Is a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE .  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : after reading WP:NLIST and the requirements laid out within, I agree with Let'srun that this article does not meet them.  Oliver Phile ( talk ) 14:27, 28 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
MIRACL (security firm): The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now.  A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage.  Brandon ( talk ) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing ,  and United Kingdom .  Brandon ( talk ) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  23:21, 15 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, sources in the article are PR announcements and run-of-the-mill coverage that relies entirely on material provided by the company or their execs.  HighKing ++ 10:05, 16 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
Giovanni Padrón: JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Puerto Rico .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 17:30, 11 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
CEA-PME: BEFORE search turns up few mentions of the organization outside its own website and related business websites, and no reliable, third party sources .  Geoff | Who, me?  17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business ,  and Belgium .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Obvious promotional tone of the article also asks for WP:G11 , but I am not sure (how it stayed here for more than 15 years?).  This nomination was created 6 days ago, so it should be resolved soon enough.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO .  It is somewhat surprising how little coverage this organisation has, given the claims in the article.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:57, 18 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
Manuel La Rosa: [2] Angelo ( talk ) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  Angelo ( talk ) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:13, 30 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
Leigh Sherer: Let'srun ( talk ) 03:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Alabama .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to WP:BIO1E .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:24, 2 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
Martin Polniš: Fails GNG in that a search yielded no significant and/or independent sources whatsoever.  Contested draft.  I don't see this being more notable in 6 months time.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovakia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no decent coverage found.  The only source giving him more than a passing mention is FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín , which is obviously not independent.  Creator has a possible WP:COI as, in their whole time here, they have only written about Polniš who, on the face of it, seems to be nothing more than your average semi-pro youth footballer.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  He may become notable one day, but nothing indicates at the moment.  Svartner ( talk ) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —Poorly formatted and lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, also is there a WP:COI with user Pplbk with this article and the other article FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín ...  Something feels iffy.  Govvy ( talk ) 22:01, 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
4-7 defect: Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 21:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 23:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as not meeting WP:GNG .  Carbon materials can have a large selection of various defects but most (or even all) of them are not notable on their own.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 15:39, 16 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
RunScanner: Source searching is finding only software download websites.  No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no evidence, or claim to, notability.  Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lacks any WP:SIGCOV .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:54, 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
Khursheed Mansoori: NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide ( talk ) 07:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete local party functionary not otherwise notable, does not pass WP:NPOL.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable politician, fails WP:NPOL .  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 12:50, 22 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