hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Belgium in Eurovision Choir: All relevant information is already contained within Eurovision Choir , Eurovision Choir of the Year 2017 and Eurovision Choir 2019 , and separate articles outlining specific information for each country is unnecessary.  The contest is currently on permanent hiatus, meaning that opportunities to develop these articles are non-existant, and there is very limited coverage outside of the "Eurovision bubble" which would support continuing to host these articles.  Additionally, previous consensus has already been reached to delete country articles for similar contests, e.g. Turkvision Song Contest (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest ).  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , Belgium , Denmark , Germany , Latvia , Slovenia ,  and Wales .  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 09:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If you strip out the "origins of the event" section which is information from the main Eurovision Choir article (and is a copy/paste in each of these articles), you're left with some prose saying the country participated, a table with two lines of participants, and a second table with two lines saying who commented on the performances on tv/radio.  I find the commentators in the context of Choir to be WP:CRUFT .  The participants are already included in each year's article ( 2017 and 2019 ).  If there were more than two contests, perhaps these pages or a "list of entries" page could be appropriate.  However, it's easy to just look at each year's page to see the country in question's participant.  I see little need for these pages in a practical sense.  With the future of the event unlikely, a redirect to keep open the possibility of expansion seems unnecessary.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 14:06, 14 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
Abdulaziz Al-Jalabi: The best that I can find are Al Sharq , a squad list mention, and Al Khaleej , which mentions him once in a list of players.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:12, 2 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
Intellectual disability in animals: It is not a topic studied in the context of eg veterinary medicine or biology.  There are no reliable sources in the article and no such sources could be found or have been provided.  See the section Talk:Intellectual_disability_in_animals#Does_the_concept_of_"intellectual_disability"_exist_in_animals?  for further discussion.  TempusTacet ( talk ) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology , Medicine , Psychiatry ,  and Psychology .  TempusTacet ( talk ) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Ridiculous article.   Cites the websites Cuteness.com and onlinepsychologydegree.info.   Probably a hoax.  I can find reliable sources on animal models of intellectual disability (in humans) but that's not the same thing.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - did a search on JSTOR, all results lead to intellectual disability in humans , found nothing about intellectual disability in animals.  Doesn't look like it's something that's widely studied.  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 17:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete: Agree with nom.  Article appears to be a hoax.  User:Let'srun 18:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree, looks like a hoax.  Lijil ( talk ) 20:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete per nominator and above.  Horrific sourcing about anything vaguely medical is intolerable.  -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 17:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: If my sources were horrific I’m sorry and I would never on purpose use any third class sources on any Wikipedia.  If the article was not that good please erase and I’ll never create this page on Wikipedia again.  You have my words.  Angela Kate Maureen Pears 17:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete I'm not sure that it's a hoax, however, it's definitely borderline.  Tropical Storm Angela is the page creator and seems to support deletion as well...  D u s t i *Let's talk! * 23:00, 24 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
Mr Duke: Article was created in 2007 by what appears to be a fan, relative, or by Edwards himself, violating WP:COI .  Only reference in article redirects to a dead link.  Cheers!  Fake scientist 8000 16:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Poetry ,  and Wales .  Cheers!  Fake scientist 8000 16:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The reference has now been fixed using User:InternetArchiveBot at iabot . toolforge . org I encourage everyone to run IAbot on articles they are considering nominating before making their nomination.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even with the reference fix, there are no other notations about the singer.  Gsearch goes straight to bandcamp and other social media and streaming sites.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  2007 was the wild west days of Wikipedia.  Good times.  So we are left with a stub here that essentially violates WP:COPYVIO , WP:BLP , and WP:SIGCOV .  I'm not sure this can be fixed .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Found no significant coverage regarding the subject.  I tried to search for him  on Allmusic as well, and found no artist under "Mr Duke".  While there seems to be a lot of musicians named "David Edwards", none of those listed on Allmusic seems to be him.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 04:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
The Day of My Wedding: Lacking coverage and no sources to back the statement "The film received critical acclaim and won several awards at international film festivals".  LibStar ( talk ) 02:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Gsearch returns Imdb, an Amazon listing, some quote website and this Wikipedia article as the first four hits.  I'm not sure how notable the film is if it gets almost nothing in Google search listings...  There is nothing in Gnews, other than quotes about weddings.  There just isn't coverage on this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even using quotes around the film's title and a Gsearch limited to . bw sites, there is nothing for this film.  Almost appears to be a bad case of PROMO?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Botswana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - completely fails WP:NFILM .  No outside coverage of this film other than IMDb and a press release that may or may not be related to this film.  Mike Allen 23:14, 3 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
Shayamal Vallabhjee: Notably, there's insufficient substantial coverage from reputable third-party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail.  Consequently, it fails to meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:BIO .  It's crucial to remember that notability isn't inherited , meaning that having notable clients doesn't automatically confer notability.  GSS 💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and India .  GSS 💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Sportspeople , Health and fitness , Medicine , Psychology ,  and South Africa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Fails notability and the sources are mostly unreliable that are blogs and another with error.  Even personal life segment does not have any coverage from third party sources.  It also fails WP:BIO .  RangersRus ( talk ) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and for the reasons that I stated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alister_De_Bellotte .  Doctors, coaches, and other staff on teams are not automatically notable .  If they fail WP:SIGCOV , they fail WP:GNG .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:59, 26 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
Paulina Sarkanaitė: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this .  Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:50, 10 December 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 ) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the SIGCOV [1] to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC , GNG.  Hopefully the article can be improved.  Respublik ( talk ) 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source (a YouTube video produced by a football club) is neither reliable nor independent so contributes nothing towards notability.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source is not from the club, nor has anything to do with it.  It's a reupload.  Original source is the Lithuanian radio TAU .  Respublik ( talk ) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On a further analysis, the part from 00:00 to 00:05 is by the club.  All the remaining content (00:06-23:48) is a reupload from an independent source as stated above.  Respublik ( talk ) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't speak Lithuanian but it sounds like a direct interview with the player herself.  Anything coming directly out of the player's own mouth will be non-independent.  We need an article built on what people in the media are saying about her not what she says about herself.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – An article " List of Lithuania women's international footballers " should be created to cover these athletes, as well as in other similar cases.  Svartner ( talk ) 13:47, 23 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
Rosamund Else-Mitchell: Biruitorul Talk 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 1 gnews says it all.  Fails WP:BIO and possible promotional article.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Educator did education things, then became publisher and did publishing things.  Lacks WP:SIGCOV references, so fails WP:ANYBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The EdTech Digest top 100 movers in education/technology mention gave me a minute to pause, because it sounds like a significant feat.   But I can't find any evidence online that EdTech Digest is itself notable (or anything but an advertising platform).   Without that independent evidence of notability, I need to agree with the Delete votes above.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (forgot to sign. date here is wrong) [ reply ] Delete Article subject fails WP:GNG , most of the references are PDF links & I also don't think linkedin can be use as a reference as well.-- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - couldn't agree more especially with the Linkedin!  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:29, 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
PyRoom: I can't find any secondary sources on the subject, let alone ones that would be reliable enough to establish notability.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 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!  00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete The sourcing for this software page is not ideal.  However, there might be some coverage in older geek books or magazines similar to CHIP.  Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 18:27, 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
Portuguese in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The article is padded out with information on trade and other relations between the two countries, presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources.  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Bosnia and Herzegovina ,  and Portugal .  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Template style article creation along with others (Portuguese in xxx) with very little substantive content to justify the article.  Possibly redirects to Portuguese xxx relations but quite probably ultimately not worth the effort.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per arguments made at all the other "Portuguese in wherever articles".  AryKun ( talk ) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - even the article admits that we know nothing about this community or even whether it exists or not.  The article spends most of the time talking about the trade between the two countries, which barely exists, and the soldiers of Portuguese nationality that served in the Bosnian War, which is at best a tangential topic.  There is no actual discussion from WP:RS about Portuguese people living in Bosnia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:10, 24 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
Harry Bardle: All I really found was this transactional announcement.  Fails WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and England .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 10:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : One app doesn't make you notable for a stand alone article.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per non.  Non-notable.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 19:20, 4 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
A-Haunting We Will Go (play): This play, while by a notable playwright, has never been performed by a professional theatre company.  The "reviews" in the article are of performances by amateur student theatre groups; one a local review of a production at an American high school and the other an advertisement (not a review by a critic but a copy a now deprecated program which you can see here ) by "Revised Edition Student Theatre Company"; the pre-professional theatre school attached to the professional Eastbourne based Revised Edition Theatre Company.  I could find no secondary coverage of the play in reference works, and I personally don't think the one review in evidence, a local paper covering the local high school production, counts toward WP:SIGCOV .  In other words, none of the sources provided in the first AFD which are currently in the article count as independent significant coverage.  4meter4 ( talk ) 03:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   per nom.   No sigcov of non-notable play.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 15:53, 15 May 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 03:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , with no suitable sources online.  Some of the decisions made in old AfD's seem so strange to me.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
OSQA: No sources covering the subject.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , no independent  coverage.  - Altenmann >talk 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree it should be deleted due to lack of notability -- Policy1257 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 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
Muhammad Hassan Ilyas: No notability whatsoever.  Sources are not RS.  Being the son in law of a philosopher does not confer notability.  Fails WP:GNG.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators ,  and Pakistan .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete , as the article makes no claim to notability.  Because of the lack of claim to notability I did not perform a BEFORE.  Ping if there is notability.  — siro χ o 08:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —No SIGCOV that I can find.  〜 Festucalex • talk 08:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is a Islamic theologian, who belong to the Farahi school , I find out that creating a Wikipedia article for him, would be helpful.  AlidPedian ( talk ) 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as we have the article of Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan .  AlidPedian ( talk ) 11:08, 24 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