hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Step-by-Step Instruction: This page was previously BLAR'd into the general disambiguation for Instruction , but nothing at the disambiguation page would be referred to by this title.  Restoring contents, and bringing to AfD.  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions .  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No claim to notability.  Based on the article, this is a description of an ordinary cognitive act with no public discussion of same.  Llajwa ( talk ) 23:25, 27 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
National Association of Asian American Professionals: This organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG .  Most sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Virtually every mention I can find is cursory or trivial, not substantial.  I cannot find any qualifying sources to establish WP:NORG .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:11, 17 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!  22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the sources not from the organization itself are news coverage (probably failing WP:ROUTINE ) about particular events held or awards given by it rather than the organization as a whole.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 00:54, 27 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
Halesowen Chronicle: The best source I can turn up is this blog (?) , which describes it as "a weekly freesheet tabloid newspaper delivered to households in the town of Halesowen in the south-eastern corner of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley in the West Midlands," which does not inspire confidence regarding notability.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media .  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - seems to lack WP:SIGCOV or any other secondary coverage (besides the one dubious source the nominator dug up, which I also found while searching) than evinces notability for inclusion.  MaterialsPsych ( talk ) 09:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this in a 1991 business directory: HALESOWEN CHRONICLE (Free) Est: 1986 Thurs Local news, sport and features, TV guide, letters, women's page, motoring, holidays, etc.  Head Office: 51–53 Queen St, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV1 3BU.  Tel: 0902 313131 I suspect that most of that is untrue, over 30 years later.   Certainly the Australian WWW site, whose content is full of lorem ipsum and just screams unreliable source, supports none of the rest of the article at hand about a differently named subject.   The non-directory content is unverifiable and Wikipedia is not a business directory.  Delete .  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A long dead newspaper that was little known when it was alive.  Athel cb ( talk ) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , does not pass the threshold per other users' WP:BEFORE .  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , Per nom, also no significant coverage.  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 13:33, 13 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
College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists: I also searched under its previous name, "British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT)".  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 16:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Sexuality and gender ,  and United Kingdom .  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 16:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 1 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!  23:44, 8 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!  22:42, 15 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
Udeorah Uche: Created back in 2009 when standards of BLPs were much lower, although the creator was still blocked indefinitely for making articles such as this one.  Supersport is only a trivial mention of Uche and the only other mention of him was on Colinudoh.com , which shows him being named in a squad with Joseph Yobo , Nwankwo Kanu and a few other famous names.  That said, WP:NOTINHERITED applies and Uche would need significant coverage about him to have his own article, which I could not find despite searching "Ude Uche" and "Uche Udeorah" as well.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 January 2024 (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) 18:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 06:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not even one source to meet Notability.  Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG, obviously.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:32, 4 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
List of Indonesian schools abroad: From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no references which cover the topic as such.  Regarding being a list article, there is really nothing that says what it actually is.     What is an "Indonesian school"?     Without that, IMO, besides failing wp:notability it really has no specific defined content or sourcing that included schools meet that non-existent criteria.  North8000 ( talk ) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Lists ,  and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  Also the article is just a list with no proper details as per above.  killer bee 05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR .  No notable entries.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:15, 12 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
Vasilisa Kaganovskaia: PROD was removed without explanation.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 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!  23:17, 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!  23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NSKATE, as far as I can tell.  Halfadaniel ( talk ) 05:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  The "Grand Prix" is not a senior-level national championship.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:09, 17 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
ASM-One Macro Assembler: ~ T P W 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems to be quite popular (in its time), but I was not able to find any suitable sources (reviews, articles about practical use etc.).  Will look further.  Pavlor ( talk ) 07:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 24 May 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!  23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete while interesting to learn about, it doesn’t meet GNG and no significant coverage found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 15:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) — TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete: per nomination.  There has to be a line somewhere.  -- Yae4 ( talk ) 04:53, 4 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 7 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per WP:NLIST .  Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming.  This list doesn't seem relevant.  Svartner ( talk ) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD.  Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:03, 28 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
Georgia–Kentucky football rivalry: Jweiss11 ( talk ) 16:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not finding depth of coverage about a rivalry.  I did find a passing reference or two.  E.g., here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry has been a little something less than friendly.").  And one of the sources questioned whether it was a top-level rivalry.  See here ("The Georgia-Kentucky rivalry certainly doesn't rank among the SEC's most heated.").  Yes, the teams have played more than 75 times dating back to 1939, but other factors weigh negatively: (1) lack of geographic proximity/not border states; (2) not a competitive series (Georgia has dominated throughout the history--63–12–2); (3) no trophy or named series; and (4) lack of ranked matchups (2023 matched #1 vs #20 but that's about as good as it gets).  Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , Georgia (U.S. state) ,  and Kentucky .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  No evidence that this is a notable "rivalry".  glman ( talk ) 19:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: This rivalry has had some passing coverage over the years, but mere mentions and questioning whether the teams are even rivals at all don't lend to notability.  User:Let'srun 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per all above.  Both of these teams have real rivalries elsewhere, and this ain't it.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 18:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG with lack of  SIGCOV specifically describing these teams as rivals.  Being in the same conference and having many previous meetings does not automatically make teams rivals.  Frank Anchor 13:03, 25 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
ICS 219: No obvious good WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 09:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Products .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not sure if this is enough to establish notability (I don't think it is personally) but I found a few sources for this a training manual , an aid plan .  There are other various official government documents but again this does not mean it is notable on the basis I have not yet found significant secondary coverage.  EvilxFish ( talk ) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A form can be notable, but it doesn't look like this one is.  Owen× ☎ 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence of any significance or notability for a stand alone article.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:30, 13 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
Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti: All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent.  A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Christianity ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:31, 16 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!  05:41, 23 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
The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo: I've tried looking for reliable sources, it's all just IMDb -style pages with a short synopsis and cast list.  The article as it is now is just a clone of the IMDb page.  There's been no media or critic engagement and no notable viewer engagement.  The history of the article has just been obvious WP:PROMOTION , WP:COI , and some WP:CV .  Spagooder ( talk ) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Martial arts .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there that give more than a passing glance.  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks references with only 2, and didn't find anything with good faith google search.  Doest seem to pass WP:GNG .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not sure the article's only reference is a reliable source.   I do know my own search did not find sources to convince me that either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met.   The article also appears to have SPA and COI issues.  Papaursa ( talk ) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Gracie_family#Documentary_coverage ; I have incorporated a limited amount of text there using the Trip magazine source.  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just double-checked the Trip article and it's a puff piece on the family, only production/release info is the director's name.  Spagooder ( talk ) 16:30, 22 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
Kazakh campaigns of 1843–1844: The article was created in order to have the column "Kazakh victory" in the infobox Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Kazakhstan ,  and Russia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Kenesary's rebellion .  Unlike the creator's other articles Bekhmakhanov is quoted accurately with the source not distorted.  However, Bekhmakhanov doesn't have a name for these events, and Abdirov's winter campaign phrasing does not refer to the 1843-1844 events.  Kges1901 ( talk ) 04:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even the redirect should not be imo, because this term does not exist anywhere at all.  Kazman322 ( talk ) 13:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have options like "Russian campaigns against Kenesary Khan" and "Russian campaigns against the Kazakh Khanate" of 1843-1844.  Batyikhan 4-5 ( talk ) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to get second opinions on the Redirect suggestion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - A Redir implies that there is someone, somewhere, who will search for this term.  I agree with Kazman322 that the term itself is unattested and thus unlikely to ever be a search string.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:05, 16 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