hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Kim Chung: Simione001 ( talk ) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 03:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I understand that this article fails WP:SIGCOV , but I sincerely believe that senior appearances for a national team that does not receive much or any coverage in reliable sources should count toward notability.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of notability.  Wikipedia has a serious problem with tiny unnotable microstubs of random athletes tbh.  Prodraxis ( talk ) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't find any suggestion of notability     -- Devoke water 21:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG and really concur with Prodraxis.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:13, 19 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
Berk Tarakçıoğlu: BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 02:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts , Cryptocurrency ,  and United Kingdom .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Aintabli ( talk ) 20:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:ARTIST , WP:TOOSOON WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete crypto spam, no evidence of notability - David Gerard ( talk ) 17:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  -- Kadı Message 19:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  - Rich T | C | E-Mail 20:33, 20 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
Sherwin Skeete: No indication of notability.  Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean ,  and South America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:26, 12 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
Joulepoint: Sohom ( talk ) 18:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , India ,  and Andhra Pradesh .  Sohom ( talk ) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to self, Hyderabad is not in Andhra Pradesh anymore you dummy Sohom ( talk ) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions .  Sohom ( talk ) 18:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What makes the article not meet the General Notability Guideline?  It is a burgeoning EV development company in India.  The company partners with the central government there as well as the railways (also managed by the central government), it provides the same function as Chargepoint , but in India Thistheyear2023 ( talk ) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, in short, we don't care about anything other than if the company has reliable, in-depth, third party sources covering it, in this case, almost every source you have added is a press release and I could not find anything else of note while looking for additional sourcing, thus my statement at the start pointing out that the article is potentially non-notable Sohom ( talk ) 18:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am not seeing significant coverage even after a Google search.  Does not meet WP:GNG .  Fbiagent010 ( talk ) 07:11, 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
Sharon Gómez: Her only claim to fame per WP:BIO1E is winning a beauty pageant.  Even if that is considered to be enough, I have been unable to verify her win with a reliable source which is very odd.  SL93 ( talk ) 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Puerto Rico .  SL93 ( talk ) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing found for this person, only hits on the name, in unrelated people/industries.  Not meeting GNG, lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom; the beauty pageant results are insufficient coverage for a biographical article, and there is no sign of other coverage beyond her personal social media (which does not suggest that she is a public figure).  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  She and her partner were interviewed by their local newspaper after they returned from a holiday in Barcelona where they were very close to a terror attack and then dealt with two hurricanes, which is neither here nor there.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:46, 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
WWBK-LP: Let'srun ( talk ) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a more complicated one than a clearly-non-notable LPTV—which, to be clear, this very much is—should be.  Obviously there is no independent notability here; in and of itself the only known programming on this analog license was TBN, and its post-TBN history seems to have mostly been on paper and off the air.  But along the way it did spawn a digital companion channel that survives to this day.  But WWBK-LD ended up becoming an equally-non-notable HC2/Innovate station and a separate article for that was redirected at AfD .  There is zero reason to retain even one article on this (these should have been merged years ago, if only to have had one less AfD on this subject), and I'm leaning towards delete , but this arguably could be redirected to the list of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as an {{ R avoided double redirect |WWBK-LD}}.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 7 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!  23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:29, 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
The Afflicted (American band): This band has no appearance of connection to even a notable record label so I sincerely doubt they were getting placements in anything other than random fanzines which wouldn't be considered reliable sources.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (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 ) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Gnewspapers doesn't bring up anything about them.  Gsearch brings up what seem to be full length videos of basically their albums playing, but nothing else for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gbooks has nothing for a band, only hits on various people affected by things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - poorly sourced, but if it's true that "The album was named one of the Top 10 Records of 1985 by GQ Magazine," this band seems notable.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The key being "if it's true" which I have been unable to confirm via any search I've done.  And I don't know that one top-ten album placement from one magazine would be enough for a whole band; for the album, sure, but that's a much smaller scope.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find any meaningful coverage in sources.  Popcornfud ( talk ) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with sadness, because I cringe every time |we have to delete a band or album article .  On the plus, there seems to be some evidence of recognition.  On the minus, they were primarily a cover band, there is great difficulty finding citations, and there is scant evidence of touring.  I am not opposed to userfication.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:36, 31 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
List of IMAX venues: The most recent AfD closed as no consensus but several of the keep arguments were effectively arguing WP:USEFUL , which is not an appropriate deletion argument.  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per WP:NOTDIR .  However "useful" it is, the IMAX website that is the source for the vast majority of entries is more so, not to mention more accurate.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  [[WP:NOTDIR]] and doesn't fundamentally improve the article (or wiki as a whole) Lostsandwich ( talk ) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Orientls ( talk ) 07:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom and per my vote in the previous nomination.  Having Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per [[WP:NOTDIR]].  At the time of the first two AfDs the two valid arguments for keeping the article  were rarity and notability.  Since the advent of IMAX Digital and other PLF screens this is no longer the case.  Barry Wom ( talk ) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  WP:NOTDIR .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps refocus and rewrite as List of 15/70 IMAX venues or something under a similar title?  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR .  Also, what about my cinema that claims to be an IMAX venue or the ones of many 'pseudo IMAX VENUES', hence the issues we have with this list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 15:08, 5 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 Gideon: Best thing I can find is Footballeur Lifestyle , which simply lists his name and DOB.  WP:SPORTBASIC requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which we do not seem to have.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Nigeria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed stats, name mentions, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 13:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:58, 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
List of Tintin home video releases: Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NLIST .  Belongs on a fan Wiki not Wikipedia.  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete catalog cruft Dronebogus ( talk ) 21:50, 17 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
Hallmark of Harmony: a check for sources yields nothing substantial.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
John Edwin Fulton: The one source the article does have is dubious as well.  Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Fiji .  Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Catfurball ( talk ) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nomination, excessively lacking proper sources.  Noorullah ( talk ) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per mom, no WP:GNG .  Poorly written article, but with no sources outside of the article as well.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OR .  The only source is a directory listing.  When we have a page with only one source, it is tantamount to original research.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Found no source to defend, not notable.  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Found a few thing on Google with passing mentions but nothing of substance.  Fails WP:NBIO .  — GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Couldn't find any reliable sources Waqar 💬 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, SIGCOV, OR, GNG, etc.  Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:57, 2 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
Happy Palace Group of Schools: BangJan1999 22:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been deleted three times check [5] .  Also, Wikiwriterforal has submitted it to AFC up to four times and it has been rejected for NPOV .  Lastly, the article failed WP: GNG Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 23:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan .  BangJan1999 22:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt.  The schools exist.  A couple of news reports show this, but they are not notable in their own right and not as a group either.  Apart from a couple of local news reports, I find nothing so an article is not possible at this time.  Salt owing to the repeated re-creation, and because if a school becomes notable in the future, it would be one of the schools and not the group.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt per Sirfurboy.  Fails GNG with only routine local coverage and primary sources.  The linkless BOL News reference appears to be copied from one of the umpteen versions kicking around, but I won't bother linking it here as it's clearly a paid puff piece.  Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/UPE of several SPAs is evident in the edit histories of this article, Happy Palace Grammar School , Draft:Happy Palace Grammar School , Draft:Wahab Shah , and probably other drafts I haven't spotted yet.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:34, 22 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
Plutus.com: Sources are all PR or un-RS, with little to no coverage of the company, beyond routine things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , crypto spam.  I removed the crypto sources and there's just press releases left.  Should be G11'ed - David Gerard ( talk ) 17:33, 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
Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race: The results are unreferenced; the single reference is not independent of the topic.  Klbrain ( talk ) 16:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Agreed, no independent notability.  Any content worth preserving (I don't think there is any) could be merged to Australian Formula 3 .  5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete minor support event that hasn't being run for 17 years BFC Aspie ( talk ) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, 5225C.  Other than Macau GP, most individual 2nd tier or below races are not notable, especially those sanctioned by the FIA.  Most people but the most ardent fans don't pay attention to it too and don't remember who wom either, including Macau.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This race seems pretty minor.  Most people wouldn't recognize it, even those who follow racing closely.  Since it's not very well-known and hasn't been around for a while.  Waqar 💬 16:49, 3 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