hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Zagg: The page mostly has details about the management structure change and has only standard notices and routine coverage of acquisitions, which as per WP:ORGDEPTH does not make the company notable.  It was created by an SPA and was proposed for deletion in the past (unrelated but FYI).  Trolli Onida ( talk ) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment PC Mag and the Verge talk about a service the company offers, I'm not sure that's enough for notability here though.  Agree that most sourcing is about management changes.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 21 July 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 ++ 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if this company is notable but 500+ million U.S. dollars in sales is not "run of the mill" , at least not in my country.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  Sounds impressive and usually for a stock traded on Nasdaq and at those revenue levels we'd find analyst reports which discuss the company in detail.  But I cannot locate any reports.  We need references that meet NCORP.  I'm happy to revisit my ! vote if someone locates something but as of now, there's nothing by way of sources that meets our criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd years ago so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The page has 27 sources and was also a listed company.  But, sources don't help with notability.  If stock listing of companies was enough to make it notable, then it could make sense.  I don't think that's the case for notability.  Revenue is good, but not a subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as per criteria.  CourtseyDriver ( talk ) 23:38, 3 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
Chong Tze Kiun: Fram ( talk ) 09:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia .  Fram ( talk ) 09:29, 4 January 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!  08:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not pass NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:23, 11 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
Scott Christopher: doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Password (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 19 February 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!  07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Can only find coverage for Christopher Lloyd, doing Doc Brown's lines from Back to the Future.  Nothing for this individual Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 26 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
Great Gangsters from the Dirty District: Band that made the album is also being nominated for deletion by another user.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages (the band's other albums) for the same reasons above: Pousse au crime et Longueurs de temps ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Life in the Dirty District ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Welcome to the Next Level ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sgubaldo ( talk ) 22:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirty_District NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All - Note that the band's article has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty District .  If nobody was able to argue that the band is notable, it is unlikely that any evidence will be found to support the album articles.  For each, I can only find the usual retail and directory sites, and even those are sparse.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the consensus here is to delete, Admins should also take action on the potentially empty Category:Dirty District albums . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all .  Did not find significant coverage of the albums other than music databases like Discog.com.  No written reviews of the albums from WP:RSMUSIC either.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 22:03, 26 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
Seina Tsukimori: Online is slightly more promising, but come down to press releases/promotional pieces.  TLA (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Advertising , Fashion ,  and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am not a "field expert", but these does not appear to be any real 3rd party coverage; ample evidence she exists, is a model, and has appeared in things, but that's it, apart from a personal "my hobbies" type of bit.  I note that the WP:ja page has more references, but a number are marked "not valid reference", and the page is marked as problematic.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 07:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is the only news coverage I could find, I'm unsure if it's a RS [112] .  A search of . jp websites doesn't bring up much beyond social media, blogs or e-commerce sites.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not a Wikipedia policy expert here, but I can tell that the article doesn't meet the notability criteria.  The writer is literally forced to use instagram as a citation...  Even the jpwiki version is flagged as Personal research Lacking citations Not notable Probably the best to delete and see if she meets notability criteria in the next few years or so... ( AlphaBetaGammsh ( talk ) 02:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Weak Delete .   While I don't have any confidence in my ability to find Japanese sources that might not be cited yet in the article, nothing in the text or proffered sources suggests that better sources exist or that she is otherwise notable yet.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:04, 22 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
A Motley Vision: The only sources are the blog itself.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Literature , Film , Christianity ,  and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  jps ( talk ) 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The article has existed for 16 years and has no reliable sources to establish its significance.  Jessintime ( talk ) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nominator has misstated the facts.  Two of the sources are the blog itself, one is the Association of Mormon Letters, and one is something else (but I'm not sure what it is supposed to be referencing).  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Association of Mormon Letters is not a source that we should be using to bestow notability on a blog.  jps ( talk ) 15:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not?  Thmazing ( talk ) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of significant coverage, no evidence of notability.  Not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 16:19, 14 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
Doonga: 100% unnotable surname failing WP:NNAME and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Of the sources in the article, one does not seem to mention the name at all, and one is an unreliable user-generated website/database that means nothing in terms of notability.  No other sources were found in my search that would help its case.  Also appears to have been created by someone who has the surname.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional information about the history of the page, if it's of any importance: it was draftified not long after creation for sourcing issues and lack of notability and seems to have been moved directly back into mainspace by the creator without addressing the issues.  Also in at least one instance , maintenance tags (notability, source reliability) were removed without attempt to address the issues.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Hinduism ,  and India .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I don't see an article in the Hindu Wikipedia for डूँगा.  It would be at hi:डूँगा if it existed.   Forebears.com https://forebears.io/surnames/doonga has a user-suggested (and therefore non-reliable) explanation of the origins of the name which links it to Dunga Gali in present-day Pakistan, and the Imperial Gazetteer reference is a paragraph about Dunga Gali.  The Hindu newspaper has several instances of the word, but not as a surname.  https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= The article is a stub.  https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= Oxford English Dictionary has a listing behind a paywall: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/doonga_n? tl=true And apparently doonga is also the name of a type of boat.  It would be really nice if someone who reads Hindi could locate a directory of Hindu surnames that could be used as a reference here.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:42, 12 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!  07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Article with zero references.  Svartner ( talk ) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even if we kept this one, then still don't have any articles on any notable person with this surname which could be cited as examples on this article.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 13:07, 23 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
Testseek: Fails WP:GNG .  US-Verified ( talk ) 18:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites , Netherlands ,  and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A search in a Swedish media archive didn't return anything substantial.  / Julle ( talk ) 22:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless someone finds better sources.  / Julle ( talk ) 13:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no coverage to be found.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 20:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Premraj K K: The current version is unsourced.   There is a version which is a copyvio and has been revision deleted which included this , and this as sources.   Neither appear to be independent reliable sources.   There are claims of awards.   "Indian Prime Icom award" looks to be this which has all the trappings of those awards one can buy for oneself.   It's not at all clear what award "Nationl Excellence award" [sic] refers to.  Whpq ( talk ) 01:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of notability.  #prodraxis connect 01:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agreed, no sources.  Format and overall bad writing as well Dotdashmeredith ( talk ) 03:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 26 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
Menudo Mix: Fails WP:NALBUM .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No reviews for the album found, only hits for the group Menudo.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:51, 27 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
Annalynn: Sources used in the article: The Game*Spark piece is an interview with the developer and thus not independent.  Nintendo Everything is listed as unreliable in WP:GAMESOURCES .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 14:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 14:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Irrelevant game, doesn't meet requirements.  Aquatic Ambiance ( talk ) 14:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The game itself looks cool, unfortunately this is one of those examples where interesting and notable are two different things.  The article rests on very weak coverage, most of which is unreliable or primary.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : metacritic only has two reviews, the one given and this one [5] , which I don't think is a RS.  The IGN link is simply a video of the trailer.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reluctant delete .  I like this game, but there's just not enough to it to establish notability.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 14:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No third-party reception nor reviews of the game to be found.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 04:29, 27 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
Fort Ross Ventures: All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news.  Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases.  2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A ( talk ) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by: UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 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 ) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy?  New to wiki.  Teddy012 ( talk ) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For good information on what is needed, see both the WP:golden rule and WP:Notability .  - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think this fails to meet CORPDEPTH .  The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:05, 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
Fan economy: even if it wasn't, it should be blown up anyway.  ltb d l ( talk ) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Popular culture ,  and Economics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 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
Sanjiv Chadha: Routine coverage of his appointment as the CEO of a bank.  Does not meet WP:GNG Thesixserra ( talk ) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Thesixserra ( talk ) 13:24, 30 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
I Ketut Mahendra: No sources establish notability, esp. not reliable sources.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 22:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Football .  There are more passing mentions in Indonesian than English.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 22:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - best source I can find is this article in Bola , which is nowhere near enough Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 15 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