hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ryland Adams: There is a major lack of significant coverage addressing the subject directly, and the ones that do mention the subject fall short of being reliable sources.  Majority of the sources listed are the subjects own YouTube channel or to instagram posts, see WP:NOSOCIAL .  The subject falls incredibly short of the standards that are in place by Wikipedia to establish notability, as being married to someone famous does not make someone notable.  4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia to establish notability.  4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 02:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet ,  and Colorado .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shane Dawson : Certainly some major publications with news articles on him ( People , Business Insider , Cosmopolitan ), but only in his relation to Shane Dawson.  It is a highly likely search term that can be redirected and merged.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I saw some really prestigious articles but all mentioning the subject as the partner of Shane Dawson.  I think a merge makes perfect sense in this case.  4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete outright for lack of notability - supporting sources .  What do we have?  We have YouTube videos created by our subject such as this , this -"we're pregnant! - ; more self-made content, as the jargon goes, such as this or that creation; Instagram postings, such as this , for god's sake; the impressive citing of a Hollywood Reporter article , which, alas, is about something else entirely and only name-drops our subject once; more bombastic deployments of the Hollywood Reporter imprimatur, such as this listing of awards, among whose myriad of names listed is indeed our subject; and so on.  There is a lot of refreshingly clean air, but not much of the solid stuff required.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:42, 29 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
William Lightbourn Strong: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:BIO .  Nothing on ProQuest, Newspapers Archive, or JSTOR.  APK whisper in my ear 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Aside from the lack of refs, the article itself paints the picture of a non-notable Presbyterian minister who pastored non-notable churches in the early 19th century.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , a decent man but not especially notable.  But a comment , once again that pernicious little note "this article incorporates public domain material from..." conceals the fact that this article is public domain material from.  Apart from the first sentence, it is simply, word-for-word, a copy of an obituary published by Yale.  We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, summarising multiple sources, not just another mirror site acting as a dumping-ground/archive for copies of bits of other sites and documents.  Elemimele ( talk ) 08:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should generally evaluate the value of the information in an article when deciding whether to delete or seek an ATD.  Given that this seems to all come from the Yale source, let's take advantage and do a minimal merge into William Strong (Pennsylvania judge) .  There's a sentence or two of value to the early life section of that subject's biography.   — siro χ o 09:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Connecticut ,  and New York .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found a one-page-long biography, here .  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 01:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the Yale biography that the article is built from.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think they are two distinct publications both by Yale.  — siro χ o 04:51, 26 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
NHS National Workforce Projects: Non notable defunct organisation, no references W a g ge r s TALK 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Organizations ,  and England .  W a g ge r s TALK 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An article on a project team within an (admittedly large and complex) organisation which, as with any such team, had its place in the org structure of the time but was then reorged.  I had thought searches in likely places such as the Guardian site would find comment at the points of creation or dissolution but have not found anything.  That leaves the secondary question of whether there might be an alternative redirect target?  AllyD ( talk ) 05:43, 15 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!  07:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Having looked again in the absence of others' suggestions, History_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England)#Blair_government_reforms could perhaps be a merge/redirect target, however as any text merging would probably be disproportionate coverage of one project team, and there remains a lack of sourcing, I am inclined towards deletion as the better outcome.  AllyD ( talk ) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Defunct, non-notable and sourceless.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:24, 30 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
Puri Oil (Mills): Somewhat advertorial as well.  TLA (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Delhi .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 15 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!  00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete looks like WP:Promotion Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO with fancy buzzwords inserted (SME! The mustard specialist!), with little to no coverage outside of funding announcements.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:14, 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
Daniela Cociu: For this individual, WP:BEFORE shows some ESPN statistics and brief mention in a Ministry of Education (?) article [1] and passing mention in random sports blurbs like this , but nothing that would satisfy WP:NOTNEWS substantively.  No major medals attained as far as can be seen on stats sites, which would qualify under NATHLETE; merely participating in games does not qualify.  I believe search on Romanian language (Latin) text on the Moldavan name as written in the article is sufficient (i.e. not Cyrillic).  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I searched several major Moldovan newspapers (including in Russian) and only got utterly routine event reports and passing mentions.  Examples below.  ipn.md: 1 2 3 4 5 moldova-suverana.md: 1 (sourced to the Moldova Olympics committee) novostipmr.com (Russian): 1 moldova.sports.md (Russian): 1 2 2 3 JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NTRACK .  Routine event reports, passing mention, competing, or qualifying at events does not indicate notability.  My likely location biased search returned no reliable sources but JoelleJay could not find anything even in Russian sources.   -- Otr500 ( talk ) 04:17, 31 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
Justina Baltrūnaitė: All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 , 2 , and 3 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Lithuania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV here [8] .  Respublik ( talk ) 07:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn't Meet neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO .  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 16:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not satisfy WP:BIO . --- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:24, 30 November 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
WTSD-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I now have three newspaper references in there, but if there was notability, it was before the move to Philadelphia.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : One could get away with sourcing primarily to FCC records in the looser inclusion standards this topic area still had in 2012 (but usually when the sourcing is that thin, it doesn't get into REFBOMB territory the way it is here), but in the Wikipedia of 2024 we require significant coverage , and evidently that appears to be in shorter supply here.  Perhaps mention could be made of the W14BG "Family Vision"/WXHL-LP days in any beef-up of the article for then-co-owned WXHL-FM , but not sure how due that would be, and it might not merit retaining this article in any event.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Giorgi Kobiashvili: Article contains a lot of puffery and the sources aren't adequate to establish notability: a link to his blog, a couple of links to a profile on LatestLY and a press release.  A search for more sources mainly brings up social media, like LinkedIn.  - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , India ,  and Georgia (country) .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete - No indication of notability.  Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG .  Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.  ContributorMix ( talk ) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • Keep - This article fits in every standart of biography of an entrepreneur, and by this logic wikipedia has to start deleting all articles about entrepreuneurs.  I want to say some words about notability, Indian news agencies are writing articles about this person, he appears in Indian media, even has published an article.  His work is spreading globally.  About sources, it is not an actual problem, adding sources is the less difficult problem after all of this "charges" for this article, it needs time, and every of users is able to do it, instead of putting some requests in the head of article. ---- ჯეო 4WIKI Message Me Contributions 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are too general.  If you want your argument to be taken into account, be more specific.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article and BEFORE failed to show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BLP require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 12 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!  23:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBIO .  More of an advertisment than an article.  Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Entrepreneur means businessman, so routine.  Having a blog isn't notable, rest of the sourcing is puffery.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete References seem exaggerated, feels like advertising, doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Dcotos ( talk ) 23:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet our guidelines for inclusion.  Lightburst ( talk ) 16:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
List of First Responder Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS , two of those are blogspot posts.  Of the four ESPN press releases, two of those are TV schedule listings, two of those is about the 34 Bowl games, not just this which gets a brief mention.  In all, not doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this.  All the rest are unsourced.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:13, 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
CSRA Football Classic: Joeykai ( talk ) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:09, 23 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
Timothy Craig Eaton: He is mentioned in biographies of others or of his family, just like family members often get short mentions in biographies of others, but that's about it, a background "character".  Fram ( talk ) 07:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , United Kingdom ,  and Canada .  Fram ( talk ) 07:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or restore redirect .  Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED , so he doesn't qualify for an article just because he's related to other people who have articles — but while he certainly gets mentioned in books about his family, this is in no way demonstrating that he would have any real standalone notability claim outside of being a member of a family.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:31, 12 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
Catalyst Wrestling: Half the current references are WP:NOTRELIABLE according to WP:PW/RS and a search didn't show any potential to fix it.  Edit: and the rest of the sources are also unreliable ( WP:USERGENERATED ) or trivial mentions ( WP:ORGTRIV ).  Spagooder ( talk ) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Wrestling , United States of America ,  and New Jersey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as I said when I removed the soft delete, there are RS sources cited that are all entirely about the company.  Perhaps you should show why you feel the sources are not RS instead of compound delete noming?  The talk page was available for discussion...  Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!  ( talk ) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator also states "half the references" are not RS.. .  which seems to imply the rest are fine for asserting notability (?) ... this feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.  Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!  ( talk ) 07:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response You wrote it, so it's understandable that you'd be defensive of it.  Per PW/RS — "Avoid using these sources. They report rumors, speculation, and have no reliable sourcing (where they get their information from)."  If you scroll to the bottom, you'd see footnotes listing some specifics.  In the case of Wrestling Estate, which you used 3 times, it's a "fan website with no visible oversight."  Those are just the ones immediately disqualified by PW/RS, which I said in my original reasoning.  If you have further questions about their rationale, please reach out to them.  Now, let's evaluate the other sources—Jersey City Upfront is a "hyper-local blog" ("generally unacceptable" per WP:UGC ) and Alliance-Wrestling is "the premier fan site for the National Wrestling Alliance, blogging" ("generally unacceptable" again).  Fightful is a reliable secondary source but its 2 uses were for results (trivial coverage that does not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement, per WP:ORGTRIV ) and Last Word on Sports looks like it could be a reliable secondary source, but it's just a local event preview (again, trivial coverage).  This article would need a full rehaul to meet the minimum standard but I haven't seen anything to show me that's currently possible.  Spagooder ( talk ) 15:44, 23 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!  18:42, 29 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
Esken Renewables: It's not a notable company.  Devoke water 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies .  Devoke water 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:34, 19 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
Love Brand & Co.: SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 17 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!  06:57, 24 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