hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ist (band): This one needs some evaluation by folks who understand the nuances of WP:NBAND .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing notability, there are no mentions of them in Gnews, there's a band called Ist Ist and an entertainment group called Ist.  There's an AllMusic bio, that's about all.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This Ist does not even have a biography page at AllMusic, just a couple of brief album reviews.  See: [57] .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Searching for this band is tough due to their bland name, but a search in conjunction with singer Kenton Hall reveals that he has had some success after Ist broke up, and that band is typically mentioned briefly as one of his early endeavors.  They have a couple of brief album reviews at AllMusic but no band biography, and their only claim to semi-fame is being very briefly mentioned by a famous person at his blog (footnote #13).  While together, it looks like they only got some brief gig announcements, and today their works are only visible at the usual retail and upload sites.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails notability for the reasons listed above by DOOMSDAYER.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:23, 26 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
Corpulent Stump: RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 20:11, 27 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
2023 Setúbal shooting: Does not meet WP:EVENT for having an WP:EFFECT .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Portugal .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find anything about it beyond the month after either, to show that it's WP:SUSTAINED or had a WP:EFFECT .  Shaws username .  talk .  02:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEWS .  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT .  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:NOTNEWS CSMention269 ( talk ) 06:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I mean...  CSMention269 ( talk ) 06:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The murder of three people in Europe is unusual enough for notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not a notability criterion.  LibStar ( talk ) 21:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage beyond the few days of discussion about the event, the perpetrator, etc.  Lettlre ( talk ) 17:10, 28 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
Elena Buzinova: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Belarus .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This should have just been a speedy delete .  I just googled about the footballer and there was nothing notable I could see. -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 18:03, 16 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
Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is just a non-notable product that was produced for a year.  Has no evidence of WP:SIGCOV .  Falls under WP:NOTCATALOG .  I also suggest deleting Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro with this page, it also has very little sources discussing it.  Angryapathy ( talk ) 21:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lacks coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.  Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Holy War (Merrimack–Holy Cross): The teams have only played two games.  There are other rivalries known as the Holy War (e.g. Holy War (Boston College–Notre Dame) ), but this one is not notable.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Google turns up other Holy War rivalries, but not this one.  Can't find use of the nickname to refer to the series and it is certainly not used in the only reference listed in the article.  PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs ) 20:36, 21 November 2023 (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/2023 November 21 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this rivalry beyond wiki mirrors, along with sources covering rivalries for other schools by the same name .  User:Let'srun 01:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per lack of SIGCOV and no GNG.  SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 20:41, 28 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
Airy (software): The software itself is also most likely malicious, the possibility of which is mentioned nowhere on the page.  It's also not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article, which is made apparent by the lack of real references (note: looking back, it also seems to cite a lot of fake reviews that I noticed while checking out the product for myself).  This is clearly just a company trying to sell its sketchy PUP to people looking it up on Wikipedia to tell if it's legitimate or not.  After looking through the article, it's most likely that the latter is the case.  -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as expressed by the nominator, this article is clearly an ad for the software creator.  Not many reputable sources either.  22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Frigyes06 ( talk ) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see any non-trivial/non-routine coverage from solid sources aside from this article brought up in the previous AFD, which isn't enough on its own to keep.  Tollens ( talk ) 08:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No significant, independent coverage.  Mooonswimmer 00:43, 7 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
Zuck Bucks: IP users cannot add to the AfD discussion page, so I am finishing it for them.  I'd presume the reasoning is not meeting notability due to not actually existing.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP’s nomination statement, copied from article talk page: Fails WP:CRYSTAL, with no follow-up since a burst of rumors in April 2022.  Uses of the same phrase for other subjects (a "mock" cryptocurrency or Mark Zuckerberg's political donations) do not address the original subject's defects.  Delete .  2601:642:4600:BE10:70CC:2D06:BF9E:B264 ( talk ) 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC) -- Finngall talk 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all above.  This is not a thing - David Gerard ( talk ) 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it's WP:SPECULATION .  If/when they release it might warrant an article, but now is too soon.  Shaws username .  talk .  13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  popo dameron ⁠ talk 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Meme garbage which outside of one firewalled FT link, is sourced by 'reportedly', which certainly isn't enough to clinch notability at all.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Sourcing is limited to a Financial Times report about an alleged internal and informal name for an idea that a company has, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability; the article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT .  - Aoidh ( talk ) 18:08, 14 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
Bobby Mehta: No references at all; article in the Times is only a mention due to his role at HSBC, not WP:SIGCOV .  TLA (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or return to draft status) as this only has one real source and most of the long article is completely unsupported with citations.  Notability is at least plausible, if borderline, so improving it as a draft is also an option.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 04:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , India , California ,  and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 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
Irma Carmona: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved.  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Mexico .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:28, 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!  06:52, 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
Dylan Jacob: Article has been tagged for improvements since 2019 and is largely unsourced.  Subject has appeared on Forbes' "30 under 30" list, but I'm not sure if this is enough for establishing notability.  CycloneYoris talk!  04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CycloneYoris talk!  04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable enough with just a Pr and entrepreneurial listings to deserve an article to the mainspace, considering drafting might still do.  ANU writes 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – adding this article makes me want to keep.  The company itself may actually be notable as it's written about in Vice, USA Today, and more.  TLA tlak 04:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is clearly a PR item, but it's all I could find [68] .  There are no RS talking about this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean delete .  I really tried a WP:BEFORE , but there are dozens of guys with the same name.  If you find better sources , please ping me.  I've given up.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:18, 27 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
Hull & District League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:23, 11 June 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 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Open age league doesn't appear to exist anymore; only youth teams.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep only if sources can be found.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
KVDO-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:31, 19 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!  06:52, 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
Michael Olivo: The sourcung in the article is primary sources, or not reliable sources.   I can find nothing in my searches to substantiate inclusion of this article on Wikipedia.  Whpq ( talk ) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Whpq ( talk ) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing found for this comics artist.  The Comics Journal is a RS, but it's a piece written by the author, so is primary.  I don't see any sourcing we can use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , I agree. .  I didn't find anything significant.  Bigwombat ( talk ) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New Jersey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sources provided are not coverage of the artist, rather they are blog posts or promotional listings.  I am not finding any RS online for this person.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Portable roller coaster: Unsourced for a very long time.  I couldn't find any good sources that could used in a Wikipedia entry, i.  e.  anything that includes its in-depth description or history instead of a simple definition or passing mention.  Even if there was a good source, this would be better off as a part of roller coaster .  Aintabli ( talk ) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions .  Aintabli ( talk ) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I see a number of discussions of portable roller coasters in newspapers: " New portable roller coaster at fair has its ups and downs ", The Palm Beach Post, 2009 " Fair's portable coaster one of world's largest ", The Palm Beach Post, 1982 " Old rides at state fair park are being torn down ", Oshkosh Northwestern, 1961 " It's the best ride... ", Great Falls Tribune, 1995 Any thoughts on those?  Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see much WP:SIGCOV .  There is barely any encyclopedic information that could be extracted from them.  I've noted two pieces of information that could be cited, the alleged largest portable roller coaster in the United States and their quantity (5), but the sources are quite dated.  No justification for a standalone article.  Aintabli ( talk ) 23:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete : Existence is not notability, BEFORE found examples of portable roller coasters, but nothing with WP:SIGCOV about the subject itself meriting its own article. No objection to a consensus redirect, but I don't see it as useful. // Timothy :: talk 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Not seeing significant coverage. Category:Portable roller coasters covers the rest. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 02:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , agreeing with Aintabli. sources say "oh its a portable rollar coaster" Password (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 19 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
Vedant Institute of Management & Technology: The College is described as closing in 2019 - but as offering courses.   It is not listed as a College in the local district website (Hapur).   Can't find contemporary online references.  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 17:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Engineering .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT nor WP:GNG , per WP:NSCHOOL .  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find any sources on Google, and the provided source contains only a list of colleges, which doesn't offer significant coverage.  So, it doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG .  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 15:16, 14 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