hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Action Cut Entertainment: Simple mentions do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources (the article's sources are just mentions).  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not enough coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP .  popo dameron ⁠ talk 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not delete this article page 103.129.215.67 ( talk ) 09:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My own BEFORE finds nothing to redeem it.  Its productions may be WP:N but WP:NOTINHERITED , etc.  Chetsford ( talk ) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:08, 17 March 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
Objective Verses from The Holy Quran: WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good evening, I searched many time in Wikipedia about about the verses of Quran having direct link some subject i.e. Allah (God) but could not find.  Took a lot of time to find such objective verses pertaining to some particular matter.  I think very; briefly I tried to relate Quranic verses to a particular matter/subject.  I am still convinced that this page may not be considered for deletion, Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk ) 15:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you mind explaining in more detail what you intended for this article to be about?  It's possible a new article could written.  As someone else has already mentioned in this discussion, Wikipedia is not Wikiquote (see What Wikipedia is not ).  So there's shouldn't be an article of just quotes.  But if these quotes are a topic that others have studied and have written about, Wikipedia could have an article summarizing what these others have said.  I'm just not sure what the topic is.  Tikwriter ( talk ) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, I would have tagged this for speedy deletion, it's quotes from their holy book, serving no importance in wikipedia.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still request for retention of this page for some time.  Meanwhile, I will also refer the few subjects chosen in the article to other books/ articles etc. I will also explain the matters/subjects in accordance with views / explanations given by renounced authors/publishers.  I am in Wikipedia since 2011 and have always tried to strictly observe their policies / instructions.  Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk ) 17:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article at all.  No objection to draftifying if the creator believes there is a genuinely encyclopedic subject relating to these quotes and wants to develop it further.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per "Wikipedia is not WikiQuote."  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only a synthesised list of selected quotes rather than an article about them, and might duplicate pages on the sections of the Quran they come from.  Xeroctic ( talk ) 13:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment by nominator I can't see any reason why this should not be draftified; I've left a message on the creator's talk page outlining what seems to be needed.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Catfurball ( talk ) 17:01, 25 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
Patched (malware): Another one of those articles with a name so vague it's basically impossible to search for.  * Pppery * it has begun... 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Googling "Win32/Patched" only results in primary source malware descriptions and forum posts.  I also don't see any notable incidents which exploited or used this malware.  Don't see this meeting WP:NSOFT or GNG.  — Matrix(!) { user - talk?  - useless contributions } 13:22, 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
Mukuru Service: References are routine business news.  scope_creep Talk 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Move to draft instead till ready for mainspace. -- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa , Asia ,  and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - References compared to WP:SIRS do not hold up.  For instance, the Africa.com article has a byline of "editor" and is written like a press release so likely churnalism.  The News 24 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  There is also a press release cited and other references which are unreliable or otherwise brief mentions or routine announcements.  While moving to draft would be a good WP:ATD , I don't think this would be notable anytime in the near future.  The company is almost 20 years old and if it hasn't obtained notability through significant coverage by this point I do not think it is likely to do so in the next 6 months.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn't meet either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG .  The sources are mostly reposts of press releases.  - MrOllie ( talk ) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (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 ++ 17:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for all the reasons aforementioned, draftify isn't a suitable option here more time in the draft space isn't going to cause secondary sources to write articles.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:36, 30 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
List of Dutch politicians: Category:Dutch politicians by century contains 1,395 articles ( per PetScan ), while many more would be notable under WP:NPOL .  Without any further inclusion/exclusion criteria, this list is bound to be either unhelpfully long or a rather random subset of subjects qualifying.  Tristan Surtel ( talk ) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Tristan Surtel ( talk ) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Tristan Surtel ( talk ) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Netherlands .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nominator stands correct.  Such lists should be by political role and only when additional context beyond the category is provided.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete way too broad, inclusion criterion most notable Dutch politician is not well defined, either.  Fully agree with the nominator's argument.  Broc ( talk ) 12:30, 25 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
Jo Sol-song: Simione001 ( talk ) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV without enough international experience to supplant that fact.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:04, 5 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
Siboney (rum): I tagged it back in August for notability and citations, and we really have nothing.  Google turns up nothing but listings.  Valereee ( talk ) 19:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions .  Valereee ( talk ) 19:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Aside from the stores that sell this product, I couldn't find anything to establish its notability. -- Bexaendos ( talk ) 19:32, 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
Siju Adeoye: Subject fails WP:NPOL .  Served as a local councillor for a single term before switching parties and being defeated.  Article appears somewhat promotional: "Adeoye is a voice for the residents in Chatham Central, striving for vibrant community and standing up to austerity" - which is also rather inaccurate, as she subsequently changed parties.  Many of the sources are primary, those sources that are secondary are very much routine, local coverage to be expected for councillors.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable.  Mccapra ( talk ) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article has been edited severally over the years by different editors and this article has been nominated severally for deletion discussion.  She being an elected official whether one term or not passes the Notability test.  If there have been any issues with NPOV I taught us editors we will rather correct thoses statements but using that as a basis for deletion is not what as Wikipedians we hold ourselves out to do.  Owula kpakpo ( talk ) 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately being an elected official in local government does not "pass the notability test" see WP:NPOL : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".  The article has been nominated a few times with WP:CSD and WP:PROD but not for a deletion discussion.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 01:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The party switch means that she garnered more media mentions than your run-of-the-mill local councilor, but not enough significant coverage to pass the notability bar, IMO.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:20, 30 March 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 books about waste management and recycling: Nothing to show that such a list has any intrinsic notability.  Sources are for lists of books or links to google pages or library pages featuring specific books.  The real bibliography for this topic would run to many thousands of books.  This is a very small sub-set weith no indication that they are particulalrly relevant etc.  There is a chance the list might be notable if the list was of notable books, but it isn't.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's Recycling#Further_reading with a selected bibliography, and Waste management is welcome to have one too.  If you're just looking for a list of books, use Google or your library's card catalog, not whatever this is.  Reywas92 Talk 22:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Category:Lists of technical books shows other list like this, but the things listed have their own articles.   This one has no articles for any of the books listed, and only two for authors, one of which is Carl A. Zimring with no signs of notability.  D r e a m Focus 20:46, 21 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
Roßberg (Hinterland): I can't find much else to add.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany .  JMWt ( talk ) 11:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete No claim to notability and I'm not seeing any myself.  Mangoe ( talk ) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No claim to notability or any sources found.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not much of a hill looking at that picture.  No article in the German Wikipedia.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a German article but it was deleted: de:Roßberg (Hinterland) . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:52, 26 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
Paul Massaro: Waters.Justin ( talk ) 03:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The only secondary sources that discuss Massaro are from the deprecated sources list.  See WP:DEPSOURCES .  The deprecated sources are attack articles against Massaro from Russia Today, Sputnik, and Belarusian state media.  If they are allowed, the page then appears to be an attack article.  See WP:ATTACK If only primary sources from Massaro's affiliations are used, then the page appears to be a self-promotion page, and primary sources do not establish notability.  The article should be deleted because reliable secondary sources do not exist to establish notability, and biographies of living people require extra care.  See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons .  Waters.Justin ( talk ) 03:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Maryland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agree that this is basically an attack-page.  No SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, interviews are not independent of the subject.  WP:BASIC fail.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A combination of an attack page and a WP:NOTNEWS case.  No indication of notability.  Nsk92 ( talk ) 11:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not enough reliable sources.  NM 01:16, 19 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
Padmaja Venugopal: There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 ( talk ) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala .  Spworld2 ( talk ) 10:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete her profile.   she is not eligible to be listed on wikipedia.  Jimsocial ( talk ) 00:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians -related deletion discussions .  Spworld2 ( talk ) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (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/2024 March 12 .  Delete We have had plenty of American election season AfDs but of course it's also an election year in India so we will be getting more of this - articles about unelected candidates, many created as free promo.  Coverage I can see relates to her changing political parties ahead of an election.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't find anything that suggests notability   -- Devoke water 11:41, 18 March 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 Sambalpur: There's no Battle of Sambalpur ever occurred per source.  It's clearly a WP:HOAX article.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military ,  and Odisha .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:34, 19 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!  06:27, 26 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
Hatim Kamal: I found a brief quote in Al-Sharq and an injury announcement in Kooora but neither of these are enough for GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —Very little here to judge.  Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 20:01, 14 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