hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Collision course: Long-time unreferenced.  I would be interested to hear what others think.  Boleyn ( talk ) 07:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems just wrong.  Vessels can be on a collision course completely unintentionally.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 07:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a generic term meaning that if you don't change trajectory you'll hit something.  It does not mean to intentionally ram a ship into another, even if you're on a collision course leading up to that.  Not a notable list of fictional events (maybe better at Ship collisions in fiction if improved?).  I'd suggest moving Collision course (disambiguation) to this title since this isn't necessary as a standalone article.  Reywas92 Talk 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , and move the disambig page per Reywas92.  The entire current article is just a badly uncited list of ramming examples.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:48, 20 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
ISO 15292: Boleyn ( talk ) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 17:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, only brief mentions and no significant coverage or indication of importance found.  Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:31, 21 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
Rhacophorus depressus: Rhacophorus depressus is now classified as a species inquirenda since the original description and syntypes cannot be assigned to any living or extinct population.  Loopy30 ( talk ) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Loopy30 ( talk ) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I'm not sure there's any benefit to deleting, or any harm in keeping.  It is possible someone will come across this name, and assume it's a species like any other, and our current article may help to inform them.  And it's not like a failed classification of a real species that can be redirected to the accepted, modern name.  Elemimele ( talk ) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  WP:NSPECIES isn't met here since there isn't a valid name/actual distinct species.  That threshold needs to be met in order to have an article at all.  KoA ( talk ) 21:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - if the existence of the species is officially disputed (which it appears to be to me, a non-specialist) then there doesn't seem to be any justification in keeping the page, which is likely to lead to confusion rather than clarity.  If the status is confirmed or clarified the page can be recreated with appropriate RS.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:14, 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
Haritha Gogineni: Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Entertainment , India ,  and Andhra Pradesh .  Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCER / WP:DIRECTOR .  Redtree21 ( talk ) 07:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Redtree21, a search for coverage of her in reliable secondary sources in English and Telugu (హరిత గోగినేని) turned up only passing mentions and the usual Tollywood PR mill.  At the last AFD, she had produced Lucky Lakshman .  Now she's also directed Fear , which appears to still be in post-production .  That's about it.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) , [ reply ] Delete .  Not regarded well known who has produced a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews.  There is not much on her in independent sources.  Fails WP:GNG .  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : clearly failed WP:N , also WP:THREE .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Producers are totally run of the mill , and are not automatically notable , so the usual WP:SIGCOV , WP:CREATIVE , and WP:BLP apply.  Arguably, the subject is notable because of two stories in the Times of India , a paper of record , but they are essentially interviews.  I'm not convinced this is notable, but an argument could be made.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:13, 26 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
Porcelain (band): It says that they have opened for notable artists, but that is not one of the criteria.  There is no indication that their albums have charted, and no significant discussion of them in reliable sources .  ... disco spinster talk 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark .  ... disco spinster talk 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there are examples of music reviews from main music magisines so I believe that is a clear evidence that the band is notable.  Jesper Urban ( talk ) 21:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's a Peter Porcelain band, nothing for this band, that I can find.  Sourcing is all primary and streaming sites.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 23 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!  23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Reads like a fandom article.  Fails GNG and NBAND.  Sources in article are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE found nothing.  // Timothy :: talk 16:43, 7 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
Jeannot Lamarque: No significant coverage.  Contested PROD.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mauritius .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What kind of PROD?  If they contested a "sticky PROD", they are in the wrong, as they had to add sources, so you could reinstate the BLPPROD.  Anyway, Delete .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 02:21, 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
Desmond Fernandes: Unref blp.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:39, 30 March 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!  08:12, 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!  23:18, 12 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
Shaun Ruwers: Primefac ( talk ) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , South Africa ,  and England .  Primefac ( talk ) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete There's quite a lot of coverage of the player in a simple search, although quite a lot of the coverage is routine.  There may be some there that would qualify for WP:GNG , but the validity of those sources is questionable.  Other coverage may exist offline, but for now weak delete.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't see any reason to keep it based on what is in the article.  Skeene88 ( talk ) 15:05, 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
Don Mansale: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 04:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE?  Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - there are a lot of sources for this one on the Vaunatu Daily Post , but they are in Bismali. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Clearly was significant figure and topic of interest in Vanuatu football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 15:52, 31 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
Jamal Yusupov: Non-notable titles and being ranked by the promotion subject is fighting for ( ONE Championship ) is not sufficient to meet notability criteria.  Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  Mostly primary sources from promotion ONE Championship, lack of independent and significant coverage.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 08:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , Russia ,  and Turkey .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete His OneFC ranking is immaterial, the point is my search found no evidence of him ever being ranked in the world top 10 (required to meet WP:NKICK ).   Fight announcements, results, and promotional PR by OneFC do not constitute significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources so he appears to also not meet WP:GNG .  Papaursa ( talk ) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator and Papaursa.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 14:09, 2 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
Exformation: No substantial independent coverage for any definition.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 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
OrSiSo: The company doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP.  US-Verified ( talk ) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article fails Manual of Style Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:31, 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!  07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources suggest this does not meet WP:NCORP .  BEFORE in English is not promising.  I found this passing references to their product [16] .  — siro χ o 07:49, 13 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
Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter): Most references from same minor blog, some other interview on Google but all promotional.  Orange sticker ( talk ) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Orange sticker ( talk ) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why has this page been submitted for deletion?  It features an international touring artist, Sean Taylor and all of the references and resources are correct.  I received an email from someone working from Wiki Crafter saying the page was scheduled for deletion ...  Please stop this page from deletion Sean Taylor Songs ( talk ) 07:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep : This [21] and this [22] cover this individual.  Not the best sourcing, but should be fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Not the best" is remarkably charitable.  The former reference is an interview with the subject; the latter is mostly written by the subject.  Rather than "not the best", perhaps "feeble".  -- Hoary ( talk ) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment have left User:Sean Taylor Songs notices on their talk page about WP:COI and the WP:AFD policies.  Orange sticker ( talk ) 08:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as sources (incl. the ones found by Oaktree b) don't meet WP:GNG , and there's nothing in the article to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either.  Haven't done a BEFORE, I assume OP did that, but happy to reconsider if someone presents some evidence of notability.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 12:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found name checks (lists of artists who performed at a festival) and sales sites, and his own site (which has an identical paragraph to the opening one here).  I do not know how significant the UK Blues Award is - I do find references to it in a search - but being nominated but not winning is surely not enough for notability.  Lamona ( talk ) 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to mention that Oaktree b has found the best sources I've seen so far (which is not unexpected for this editor, whose contributions here on afd are among those I find most useful).  Those sources are rather chatty and read more like interviews or conversations than true independent sources.  They don't bring this bio up to GNG but I could be convinced that we're seeing TOO SOON.  I still don't think we can keep this one as currently notable.  Lamona ( talk ) 23:46, 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
Kevin Galván: Simione001 ( talk ) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , significant coverage here , here , here , here , which is significant. Also played in the Gold Cup tournament which is a fairly important regional one.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment International call ups and injuries are routine coverage.  Those sources provide no significant coverage of Galván.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree it's not significant enough.  Giant Snowman 18:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as the only online coverage available is routine stuff like match reports, injury and call-up announcements (many of which simply include his name in a list).  Jogurney ( talk ) 02:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Jogurney, whose findings match my own.  Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 08:21, 14 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
2013 Albanian demonstrations in Macedonia: All the sources are from March 2013 when the event happened.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Albania ,  and North Macedonia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom, and fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV.  One good thing is that it points to 2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia which is ripe for an AfD for the same reasons if anyone wants to nominate it.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 03:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 07:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable news story, no secondary coverage.  I made an attempt to see if sources might exist in Albanian or Macedonian, but I didn't see anything after 2013.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails to meet GNG.  Ping me if non English sources may be available Vergilreader ( talk ) 19:53, 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
List of football clubs by YouTube subscribers: Fram ( talk ) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - absolute nonsense.  Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this WP:DAFT candidate.  Not a meaningful measurement of support.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – This seems like content that is much more relevant to YouTube than to football itself.  Svartner ( talk ) 21:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete trivial intersection of two unrelated things: football and YouTube.  The two are not compared together in lots of reliable sources, which would be needed to meet WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Also agree, this isn't content for wiki.  Govvy ( talk ) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not a notable intersection and non-encyclopedic.  YouTube subscriber count is not a reliable indicator of popularity, either.  Local Variable ( talk ) 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To be clear, the role of YouTube in promoting football clubs is notable because it is discussed extensively in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journals.  (See Wikipedia Library.)  However, I'm not seeing any meaningful discussion of this particular metric (football clubs compared by number of YouTube subscribers).  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:29, 21 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