hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Emile Jansen: Theroadislong ( talk ) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:01, 5 September 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!  16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Seems to have coverage in Dutch sources [3] and [4] .  Gtranslate of the articles say he's won an acting award, I'd assume that would imply notability.  The Dutch and German wiki articles are about as source-less as this one...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 12 September 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!  23:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Most "local" newspapers in Holland are actually regional.  Not the ones used by my AfD friend above.  These items are not independent either.  The subject is a professional actor who has participated in an impressive (!) amount of media series and units.  The problem for encyclopedic notability is that he nowhere led.  He remained a professional at work, even where the units in which he acted became famous.  That's fine yet moves him to the group of professional actors who are NN for Wikipedia.  He is still a great fit for IMDb .  gidonb ( talk ) 07:50, 23 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
David Shankar: I don't think this subjected is notable, sorry.  Expressive101 ( talk ) 09:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 16 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
Too Lost (company): Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request.  Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost , also deleted under G12 KH-1 ( talk ) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Technology ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions.  S0091 ( talk ) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources fail WP:NCORP as WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS , WP:TRADES publications or WP:ORGTRIV mentions.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  Just to add, the primary difference in sourcing between this version and the previously deleted version is the addition of several PR announcements, none of which can be used to establish notability.  HighKing ++ 10:03, 16 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
2023 Tucker municipal elections: After a search I believe it violates WP:SIGCOV , WP:NOTNEWS , no WP:DEPTH .  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Owen× ☎ 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly non-notable election, only non-lasting local impact.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:04, 26 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
International Order of St. Luke the Physician: Possible sources in further reading are either primary sources, do not mention the subject at all, or mentions are trivial.  Nothing in my BEFORE was enough to convince me this would meet WP:NCORP .  I didn't realize there was previously a PROD in 2008, so I'm starting this AfD now.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity ,  and Medicine .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete "International Order of St. Luke the Physician", "Order of St. Luke the Physician", and a number of searches including "OSL" all failed to bring up anything suggesting notability.  -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 02:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As an EpiscopalIAN, I've heard of them, but they are sort of FRINGEY .  Bearian ( talk ) 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to the Faith healing article as there are enough academic sources in the further reading section to justify that, in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and ORG.  Sources in article are primary.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the further reading section shows some academic and secondary sources, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned the further reading section in my nom.  Are you seeing something I'm not?  The more academic sources didn't seem to mention this organization at all.  I'm not sure what exactly would be merged.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 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
Plant Based News: Wpstatus ( talk ) 14:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Wpstatus ( talk ) 14:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Gnews hits strictly on their news portal and Gsearch is straight to social media links for the group.  No sourcing found that discusses the group.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Websites .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn't seem to make an attempt at WP:GNG nor am I seeing independent sourcing, especially outside of vegan circles.  KoA ( talk ) 13:56, 15 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
Mahrou Ahmadi: As an alternative to deletion, article could be redirected to one of the pageant pages, probably Miss Earth 2022 (note Miss Iran 2022 is [still] a redlink and itself presumed non-notable).  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fashion , Beauty pageants , Iran ,  and Turkey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article says she participated in three pageants and won two of them, and seems to be supported with adequate references.  Beauty pageant winners get a lot of media coverage.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are implying that winning some pageant makes a person notable.  The relevant guideline states Winners of Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable.  The subject of this article has not won such an award.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : I put the more citations needed template for this article to have more sources for this BLP.  CastJared ( talk ) 00:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CastJared : Are you providing a policy-based reason to keep the article?  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 20:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggested to weak keep article as it needs more citations.  CastJared ( talk ) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We both agree it needs more citations.  The problem is: do such sources exist?  There's no presumption that they do, per the relevant notability guideline .  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 15:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed template, as it tells that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline .  CastJared ( talk ) 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She has won beauty pageant and as per the Wikipedia winning awards or pageant means passing the notability and that too she has won 3 pageants so yes this page should not be deleted.  —

Discussion outcome: delete
MultiBank Group: – brad v 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Can't find anything relevant on my end either.  Best was an interview.  No comment on the CU stuff, obviously.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and there's no way you can build a decent encyclopaedia entry from press releases and Nasdaq listings.  Expressive101 ( talk ) 13:25, 25 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
Signature Yashmagh: No evidence of GNG.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 13 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!  22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 14:19, 27 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
KiMs: ~ T P W 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Denmark .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 22 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!  23:31, 29 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
Pinkman: Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists ,  and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non notable artist.  No sources found.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Created mainly by a single-purpose account , this is no more than an attempt at getting to be more widely known through Wikipedia.  Subject fails WP:GNG .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST Seawolf35 ( talk ) 15:34, 28 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
MobilEcho: Dawnbails ( talk ) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  Dawnbails ( talk ) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all the source online were promotional or third party.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 21:42, 31 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
Advitya: Can be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability_organizations Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations ,  and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:48, 24 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!  07:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no secondary coverage I can find, ineligible for coverage at that list per WP:CSC and the requirement for notability.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:05, 31 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
Ramco Cements: Theroadislong ( talk ) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Products ,  and India .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Despite trying to find more sources for the article, I only found one that was useable in a sea of investment news articles and that's not nearly enough.  I've added the information to the article regardless.  Commissar Doggo Talk?  12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There is not enough to contemplate a separate page solely dedicated on this subject even after some changes by CommissarDoggo.  I cannot find sufficient coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  Per nom fails WP:NCORP .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Little evidence of notability .  The first source is just a listing, the second is the subject's own web site, the third establishes that it moves crushed limestone from one site to another, and the fourth does not mention the subject.  I've tried to find something better (though only in English-language sources), and failed.  Maproom ( talk ) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails to establish notability; seems to have been an obvious promotion when it was first created, it's no longer promotional, but still has no reliable secondary sources.  Unknown-Tree🌲?  ( talk ) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Badly fails WP:NCORP .  Almost meets WP:MILL and/or WP:SPAM .  Bearian ( talk ) 21:18, 25 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
Police Trainer: Was already dePRODded in 2010.  Waxworker ( talk ) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Waxworker ( talk ) 23:48, 16 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 ] Keep - Being the subject of arcade games, the game really has a popularity.  It fulfills the notability.  Being an old article, may have been based on a reference for so long, its mention is spot on in search and other places.  I have improved the article.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ontor22 : - I've removed the sources you added - Hard Drive is a satire website similar to The Onion , and the article was a joke.  GameFAQs is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source and unreliable per WP:VG/RS .  The reliability of the Arcade Club database is unclear to me, but it isn't substantial coverage regardless.  Waxworker ( talk ) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Be mindful of WP:ITSPOPULAR , understand what you mean but notability-type arguments not based on policy around WP:GNG can have issues.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources you added are not reliable, sorry.  It was a good move to revert that.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:GNG .  Short articles in EGM2 and Retro Gamer : [14] , [15] , not significant coverage.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 06:41, 1 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
Imen Mchara: The most I was able to find was this interview.  Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Tunisia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   No reliable sources .   -- NYC Guru ( talk ) 05:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Doesn't go close to establishing WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:22, 21 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
Assault on Gdańsk: I failed to locate sources that mention this incident in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV , further, the Polish sources I see give the date of this incident as the night of May 22 to 23, not May 25.  The sources I see do not also give the name of this small battle; and the article gives effectively six (assault or battle, and three name places - two for Gdańsk and one for Kiezmark .  The stubby article ends with a mention of another battle two months later... it's a mess.  I suggest redirecting this to Sieges of Danzig (disambig) and moving on.  Alternative redirect target can be the wider conflict ( Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629) ) where this incident is mentioned.  No need for a separate article unless sources can be found that allow us to show this can be expanded (and, well, named properly).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Poland ,  and Sweden .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete bizarre case!  The encyclopedia entry doesn't even mention most of what's in this article.  Also, it describes the construction of a sconce in 1626, not a takeover of a fort.  A blockade in may is mentioned, but no attempted assault.  On a side note it is always amusing to be subjected to the unabashedly patriotic tone of old encyclopedias.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (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 07:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As the original PROD nomination suggested this seems to be a garbled version of the Battle of Dirschau but there’s nothing to merge and a redirect doesn’t seem useful.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:58, 30 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