hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Mary Mambwe: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 08:26, 20 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
Abu Khashab shooting: Ecrusized ( talk ) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Syria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 21 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
F.C. Banjar Union: No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG.  A local football club.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A non-notable amateur team MNewnham ( talk ) 00:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Maybe @ Das osmnezz know something about this team.  Svartner ( talk ) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Svartner : , @ GiantSnowman : , One simple google search shows that this club gets lots of coverage.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which sources in particular?  Result 2 is Instagram...  Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 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
Sandeep Guleria: 2) I found the defamatory news are linked to this page without even remotely any substance.
 3) I do not want to be associated with defamation case or legal complication.  I hope above my statement is accepted and delete this page.  Rejimonck ( talk ) 07:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Rejimonck ( talk • contribs )  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD .  [ reply ] (Filed by User:FormalDude on nominator's behalf.  Request for deletion received via VRTS ticket #

Discussion outcome: delete
Let's Go Learn: Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education ,  and California .  Kpg jhp jm 09:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NCORP and clearly blatant advertising .  Kpg jhp jm 09:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete pure adware, zero evidence of notability of any flavour; should never have been moved into the main space.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: possibly notable for its DOMA and DORA diagnostic tests used in many school system. Searching on "Let's Go Learn" + software, I came up with some possible refs that bear further examination [33] [34] . I'm traveling with sketchy internet access and have not had time to search for "Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment" and "Diagnostic Online Math Assessment". Can someone else here take a look at those? Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 12:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is about all I can find in scholarly journals [35] .  Thesis?  Delete for lack of sourcing in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Online reading assessments" seem to be a thing, but not this particular product's offering.  I find many hits on the term, hardly anything for this product.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After a BEFORE, found no SIGCOV.  Also feels self promotional in style.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 08:24, 24 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 .  None of the references meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does.  HighKing ++ 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all of the above.  I looked earlier, too.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per poor sourcing and not meeting WP:GNG BoraVoro ( talk ) 08:36, 28 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
Gandhi nagar -Thekkalur: Neighbourhoods within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable enough under WP:GEOLAND to be guaranteed their own standalone articles as separate topics from the main entity they're part of -- if the place can't be reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG in its own right, then it should just be discussed within the article on the larger place rather than as its own standalone article, but this is relying entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-building reliable source coverage shown at all.  Thekkalur , further, only has a population of about 12,000 people, according to its article, which means it isn't large enough to have the depth of reliable source coverage that would needed to make it likely that its "sub-villages" could actually pass GNG on their own as separate topics from Thekkalur.  I'd just redirect this to Thekkalur, but even the page title is improperly formatted and thus not valuable for retention -- I have no prejudice against the creation of a redirect to Thekkalur from a properly formatted version of the title, but one should not be created from this version of the title.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nomination - SUN EYE 1 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability nor can I find anything to substantiate notability.   Searching is difficult as there appears to be many geographical locations that go by the name Gandhi Nagar.   No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to establish notability.   I agree with the nominator that a redirect from this title is not helpful.  -- Whpq ( talk ) 15:24, 4 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
Rogelio Andaverde: I don't see any obvious merge or redirect targets, so I propose to delete .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , United States of America ,  and Texas .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : a $5000 bond isn't what makes criminal notability, this is rather routine.  He's simply not notable for what's happened.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete News of the weird -type police blotter item with no staying power.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete man in the news for not a unique/lasting "news of the weird" does not make for notability.  Also WP:BLP .  Star Mississippi 03:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS , with no lasting coverage suggesting that this was a notable incident.  WP:BLPCRIME issues abound as well.  -- Kinu t / c 21:48, 18 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
Aneta Kowalska: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and Poland .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some limited coverage here , here , and here , which I think is evidence of further offline coverage.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm inclined to agree with this – that's an awful lot of coverage and perhaps we should be looking to the GNG rather than the NSKATE SNG.  Toadspike [Talk] 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:22, 15 June 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!  22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The third source provided by JTtheOG seem to contain somewhat in-depth coverage, but multiple good sources are required to pass WP:GNG instead of just one.  I'm leaning towards delete as a result.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist for further input.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  A search for sources didn't come up with anything other than databases.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:22, 2 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
Yu Hyo-jin: In Japanese, I found Kazuamata no Tsuzuri , which is evidently a fan blog for Yokohama FC.  I also found a user-submitted blog post on Naver about his wedding, which is no better than a social media post in terms of notability.  Neither of these are examples of reliable, independent journalism with high standards for fact checking, therefore they do not confer notability.  Doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and South Korea .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 20:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per above.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , better to concentrate on cleaning out this junk than players with 100+ games.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:47, 16 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
Lehi-Nephi: It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.  Specifically, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Also, as it was only ever mentioned in the Book of Mormon itself, and there is no generally-accepted correlation between Book of Mormon lands and known geographical locations, it is unlikely to ever receive any further coverage.  Lastly, it has had a "Religious text primary" tag up since 2011(!) without any notable improvement in that timeframe.  Trevdna ( talk ) 23:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:06, 14 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!  22:53, 20 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
Jan-Sören Eckert: UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess the question is whether we can redirect him to his current band Iron Savior per WP:BANDMEMBER (people might argue that this violates WP:XY because of the option Masterplan (band) and possibly Running Wild (band) ).  I agree there is no evidence that we should have a standalone article.  — Kusma ( talk ) 19:59, 12 June 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!  20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any opinion about a redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No indication of importance.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated.  scope_creep Talk 22:34, 22 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
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Cultural Complex And Museum: I don't see it passing WP:ORG either — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C avarrone 19:54, 10 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
Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit: Unsourced, almost entirely a plot summary, and no critical reviews.  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I did find one or two secondary sources that make reference to the skit, but they're passing mentions, not really WP:SIGCOV .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination and WeirdNAnnoyed 's research for sources.  IncompA 17:58, 10 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
Chadley Wenn: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Griffons (rugby union) where the subject is already mentioned.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see this as a suitable redirect, as linking to a current squad (which he might not be part of next season) isn't a good long term option in my opinion.  If there was a list of Griffons players article I'd suggest that, but we don't have such lists.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a trade off between supporting a possible search term today and creating future astonishment .  I'm going to leave my ! vote as it is because right now I care more about today.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to settle view on a possible Redirect as an ATD.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not appear to meet GNG, and no suitable longterm redirects are available.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:31, 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
Trustix: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Whpq and Ham Pastrami : Courtesy invitation to the active partcipants of the last AfD.  Pavlor ( talk ) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : no sources to establish notability.  Also delete its redir, Trustix Secure Linux .  The non-admin AfD closure in 2008 was improper, and shouldn't be a factor now anyway.  Owen× ☎ 20:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although it did bring up two potential sources, one of which points to a third.   They're not very good, in my view, having a whiff of a warmed-up press release about them, but we shouldn't be outright ignoring what was brought up, otherwise this is no better a discussion than last time.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (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 06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails the relevant notability criteria ( WP:GNG , WP:NCORP , WP:NSOFT ).  I couldn't find much of anything beyond the two sources mentioned in the previous AfD.  This reads like churnalism/native advertising and while it may or may not be, the other reference being a routine coverage of an acquisition announcement is very specifically trivial coverage , and the only sources I could find outside of what was discussed in the previous AfD was coverage of the aquisition which again is trivial and does not contribute to notability.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 03:55, 13 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
Yeonsoo Kim: Search engines turn up a couple of Q&A interviews which provide insight into his life, but these do not qualify as independent secondary sources.  Situation is unlikely to change in the next 6 months, plus this is a name shared by other people who may be more "notable" in the Wikipedia sense.  For this reason, am recommending deletion at this time.  No prejudice if this article is re-created in a few years if and when there is significant coverage conferring notability per WP:GNG , WP:BASIC , or WP:NARTIST .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria for inclusion.  Residencies don't contribute to notability, and the awards aren't notable.  Fails NARTIST, GNG, BASIC, and ANYBIO.  Netherzone ( talk ) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Appears to be an artist in residence [52] , with not much coverage beyond that.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:03, 10 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