hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Cafer Bater : This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Turkey .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am not finding much either.  The best I've found so far is https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162234564.pdf which is a tribute written after the artist's death.  It is in the archives of the Istanbul Şehir University Library.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I can't produce definitive sources, but based on what I have found, I think that there are likely Turkish offline sources from the 1980s and 1990s that would satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG .  I think these are all exhibition catalogues or pamphlets: [21] , [22] , [23] .  The last of the above corresponds to a memorial exhibition that occurred after his death.  Milliyet has a brief article about the exhibition opening [24] , which calls Bater one of Turkey's most important watercolor painters , and another about it being extended due to its popularity [25] .  There is a 1987 column in Milliyet archives which I can't access: [26] .  And I'm guessing the third result there, dated 03.04.1994, mentions his death.  There are two catalogs that I can't access: [27] [28] .  Together, these lead me to believe that he was a notable pre-internet Turkish watercolor artist, for which GNG-establishing sources will likely only be found in Turkish, and offline.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO, nothing showing this meets WP:ARTIST.  Sources in article (single ref and ELs) and BEFORE show nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Ping me if WP:IS sources are added to article that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not OBITs.  // Timothy :: talk 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding significant reliable sources for this artist.  Not finding him listed as part of any notable collections.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:27, 29 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
Óscar Barros : In searches, the best that I could find was Jornal Nordeste , a transfer announcement in a regional newspaper that merely lists his former clubs and doesn't provide much else.  Such coverage is usually considered insufficient at AfD and, in any case, multiple good sources are needed to pass GNG.  Other than that, I found some brief coverage of his stint in Finland but it's also below the standard; see MP and Palloliitto .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Portugal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, I wasn't sure, but from having a look it didn't look like he ever played full professional game.  Seems to be a semi-pro player.  Agree with nomination.  Govvy ( talk ) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:51, 18 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
Senior Model School, Civil Lines : No indepth sourcing to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - lacks references to support notability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Punjab .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Did not find enough in-depth coverage of the subject.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Lack of reference and poor coverage; fails GNG.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:25, 31 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
Beverley Elliott : As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the inclusion test for an actor doesn't hinge on simply listing acting roles, it hinges on showing that she's had a WP:GNG -worthy volume of reliable source coverage about her performances: biographical coverage about her, film or television reviews which single out her performance for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she has won or been nominated for a major acting award , and on and so forth.  But this is literally just "actress who has had roles", doesn't even say one word about her purported musical career at all after calling her a singer-songwriter in the lede, and is referenced entirely to a Twitter tweet and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on an unreliable blog, neither of which constitute support for notability.  And the article has never been better referenced than this in the past, either, so the problem can't be solved just by reverting to an older version.  Absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much more and better referencing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some limited coverage [9] of a performance she puts on (stage show), but nothing for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per Bearcat and Oaktree.  She's far from passing WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC or WP:NACTOR .  Cheers.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  This is an easy call.  Delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:11, 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
Douglas F. Tessitor : No sources found to indicate notability.  Tagged for notability since 2017.  Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN .  Shaws username ( talk ) 13:22, 12 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
Eunice J. Buah : Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians ,  and Ghana .  – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk ) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk ) 20:34, 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!  22:55, 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
NPC SYSTEM : Despite being a WP:REFBOMB , sources fail to support claim of notability.  Analysis follows: Sources 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14-17 are sponsored content/press releases and not independent.  Sources 3, 5, and 11 are WP:INTERVIEWS .  Sources 4, 8, and 9 are in WP:TRADES publications and thus ineligible for notability.  (Source 4's over-the-top language praising the company and its CEO gives it the ring of sponsored content or paid placement.)  Source 6 is a primary source.  Source 7 purports to be a clip of a newspaper article but it is hosted on the subject's own website and does not include the date of publication, and search to verify on the publication's site turns up no result .  Source 13 is a straight-up advertisement.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:10, 20 May 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 May 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Had been meaning to get to this one but hadn't found the time till now.  Does look like there isn't anything, and interesting to note that the frwiki version of the article (which seems to be created by the glocked MehdiKass ) has been deleted due to cross-wiki UPE spam.  Wonder if it's a translation?  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 16:08, 25 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
IC 3038 : C messier ( talk ) 12:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 01:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : non-notable galaxy.  I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not appear developable now nor in the near future.  ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article doesn't have a lot of substance.  This galaxy seems pretty obscure, and I couldn't find much written about it.  Waqar 💬 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As a creator of this article, I don't see a chance for it to be kept even longer due to the scarcity of secondary sources available for the galaxy except being covered in databases.  It's hard to say whether this galaxy is notable, but it isn't.  Should it be given more commentary, then this article can be recreated in the future.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Saleem Samad : I found some mentions of him in Google Books, but they all seemed to be passing mentions.  A draftification was contested.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Bangladesh ,  and Canada .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:52, 3 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!  05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I prodded it when it was created and agree with the nom.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:02, 12 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
Kharavela's conquests and invasions : The article is heavily promotional, and uncritically follows the only primary source ( Hathigumpha inscription ) with some added embellishing.  I'd recommend WP:TNT if there was a need for a separate article from Kharavela , but there doesn't seem to be, as the topic is already treated in context at Kharavela#Biography .  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article is built on WP:SYNTH , combining up different records of conflicts of Kharvela into a single infobox.  Latest sources barely covers the area, fails WP:GNG , and synth is used. -- Imperial [AFCND] 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Besides problems listed above, the tone of the text is hopelessly bad.It would be better to start from scratch with decent recent sources than merge any of this.  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Article is very poorly written and has major WP:NPOV issues, and in addition to the listed issues, at this point should just be blown up .  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  Grabup ( talk ) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , appears to be a synth riddled OR microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  The agony when reading through the page.  Exorbitantly poorly written page.  Attribution on this page comes from source by Dr. Amar Singh Mittal, reader in ancient history and culture from Vikram University in Ujjain India and by Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, professor of Indology at Visvabharati university in Santiniketan India and one published by Utkal University of culture in Bhubaneswar.  The creator of the page Copy pasted from these sources and needs to paraphrase.  Wikipedia has a page on Kharavela .  Maybe better to rewrite with attribution from reliable sources by creating a segment on conquests and invasion inside page Kharavela .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, also OR and NPOV issues Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:43, 2 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
Union Jack and the Megatones : It is difficult to find any coverage at all.  toweli ( talk ) 19:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A NN Band, not to be confused with another NN band 'The Megatones', in Campbell, CA MNewnham ( talk ) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and Texas .  toweli ( talk ) 19:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 17:49, 24 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
M.L.R.T. Gala Pioneer English School : No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Maharashtra .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 29 May 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 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 06:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only school databases could be found as sources.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:47, 15 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
Akode Islamic Centre : Some sources are about the selection of new committee members of the center.  A WP:BEFORE search did not show any good citations.  Fails WP:NORG and GNG Thesixserra ( talk ) 04:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools ,  and India .  Thesixserra ( talk ) 04:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  If this article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite starting from the first sentence: " Akode Islamic Centre is a system for moulding a generation that upholds knowledge, morality, and high human values."  That sounds high-minded but is far from informative.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Islam ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Thesixserra, your analysis rings with truth, lamentably calling for the excision of this article due to our adherence to WP:NORG and GNG.  Yet one ponders, do such strictures not risk the dilution of our noble endeavour, to amass and disseminate knowledge to all corners of the globe?  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not seeing enough third party sources to meet WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:12, 17 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
Croatia–Italy football rivalry : SportingFlyer T · C 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Croatia ,  and Italy .  SportingFlyer T · C 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per sources not backing up the article.  Original research was clearly done.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete two countries being next to each other doesn't make a rivalry.  They've played 8 times ever and 0 times in the last 8 years, and so unsurprisingly, there's isn't significant coverage of this so called rivalry.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - "rivalry" means a lot more than simply "series of matches between two teams", which is all this is -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not real Muur ( talk ) 22:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above.  Kante4 ( talk ) 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete as ridiculous.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:48, 23 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