hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Optimisation of cutting cycles in conventional underground coal sections to improve productivity: Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Pepper Beast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence of notability, and seems more like an essay than an encyclopedic article.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Essay, written like it should be in a thesis paper or peer-reviewed journal.  Not sure why it zones in on coal mining; it appears to be too specific for an article here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Far too niche a topic for Wikipedia, and reads like a primary source; likely either plagiarized or OR.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Coal mining बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - useful material for another venue -- it's not suited for Wikipedia . बिनोद थारू , this is so specific and technical there's nothing to merge to a general topic article such as Coal mining . Oaktree b (pedantry alert) : to answer your question, coal is "softer" than most other materials mined under ground such as iron or diamonds so equipment such as continuous miners , roof bolters and longwall equipment are specific to underground coal mining (there are a few minor exceptions such as salt and potash). Mining methods for hard rock mining of materials such as ores are totally different. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the pedantic.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:20, 3 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
Arnold Setiadi: No coverage seen, accomplishments not significant enough to guarantee presumed notability.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton ,  and United States of America .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I couldn't find any decent coverage when searching online or using ProQuest.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Couldn't find any coverage, not notable for now.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 22:39, 24 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
Education Station: Tagged for notability since 2022 Donald D23 talk to me 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Religion ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Program lacks notability beyond the regional level.  TH1980 ( talk ) 23:02, 26 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
EIN Presswire: Sources in article are either primary, not independent or provide no significant coverage .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Companies ,  and Washington, D.C. .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , seems to fail WP:CORP , as I can't find a single secondary source on the company.  It's admittedly difficult searching for independent coverage of a PR firm, since blasting their name all over online is how they earn a living.  Closest I came was an interview with a company VP, labelled as sponsored content in PR Week.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - References fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article describes a PR company going about its business, without indicating encyclopaedic notability, nor are my searches finding better.  Although the firm's service is included in some comparative reviews (e.g. the Fit Small Business item referenced in the article), I am not seeing evidence of attained notability .  (Note that there has also been some discussion on the article author's Talk page during this AfD.)  AllyD ( talk ) 11:53, 22 October 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
Throne Wishlist: No secondary coverage.  Probable COI.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and Texas .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 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!  23:24, 27 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
Affiliated Foods: There is also Affiliated Foods Midwest and Affiliated Foods Southwest so it can be difficult sorting through the references available, but I could not find anything that shows how this meets notability guidelines.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Texas .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete insufficient notability or significance of the subject, as evidenced by a lack of substantial verifiable information and reliable sources to support its notability.  -- Welcome to Pandora ( talk ) 11:53, 29 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
List of Shia mosques in National Capital Region (India): NCR includes all of Delhi , and some districts of Haryana , Rajasthan , and Uttar Pradesh .  As such, there's not really much precedent for "List of X in National Capital Region (India)".  It makes much sense to split the article into "List of mosques in Delhi", "List of mosques in Uttar Pradesh", etc.  Since NCR is an economic region, and not a cultural one, it makes more sense to group the lists by state.  As for the Shia part, there's really no need for a separate list for Shia mosques, when the denomination can be put in a column.  AmateurHi$torian ( talk ) 20:20, 14 October 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 October 14 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Islam , Lists ,  and Delhi .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Reads like a travel guide.  CharlesWain ( talk ) 12:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Agletarang ( talk ) 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Notable mosques can be listed in an article covering a broader area.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 04:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Ajf773.  DSP 2092 talk 05:15, 18 October 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
Consulate General of Indonesia, Vancouver: Fails WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Indonesia ,  and Canada .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of reliable sources Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 08:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sources to indicate notability at present, and it seems unlikely that it is notable.  Nick-D ( talk ) 10:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough notability for standalone article.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:53, 28 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
Road 89 (Iran): I cannot find any evidence that Road 89 actually exists.  The Google Map between the purported termini does not show any road labels (where it does show others in the area.  One of the two provided sources is a map that shows multiple labels on the route, none that match the Farsi script for 89.  The other source appears to be about the paving of a road in Gowharan, Hormozgan , but it says nothing about Road 89.  The Wikipedia article List of roads and highways in Iran has nothing on it.  With the sources failing verification and no other sources to be found, even if it exists, it's certainly not notable.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iran .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per nomination.  GeographicAccountant ( talk ) 01:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Articles which are entirely unverifiable actively harm Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability and should be deleted in all cases.  Another editor raised this issue on the article creator's talk page to no response.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 17:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , we shouldn't keep articles roads that are debatable whether or not they even exist.  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG .  Possibly a WP:HOAX ?  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:09, 17 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
X-ray nanochemistry: Also this is a reinvention of established radiation effects of x-rays which have been known for decades going back to at least radiation sickness following the second world war.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , non-notable, made up as part of self-promotion, and the author (of the topic and the article) has had very serious allegations made against him and has now been fired [2] .  SFC9394 ( talk ) 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how rape allegations against the researcher are relevant to a discussion about the notability of the research.  This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer .  Kindly stick to the topic.  Owen× ☎ 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, thanks.  SFC9394 ( talk ) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm already skeptical of the article since it was created by the same person who is cited in the references.  As per nom, the topic also doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article regardless.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable.  Self-promotion.  -- Srleffler ( talk ) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and has serious notability concerns.  DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a term made up by one guy, not the distinct field that the text pretends it to be.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Non-notable. -- Jasulan . T TT me 15:15, 2 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
DJ Jaffa: User requested undeletion to improve it and instead simply removed the decline notice and moved the draft to articlespace.  Fails WP:NBIO .  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Wales .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry. .  I thought I'd addressed all the concerns before republishing.  Not sure how I can improve on the resources re: notability.   He's been widely cited in both mainstream (BBC, ITV) and specialist media (added a few more references) and is broadly known in the Welsh music scene.   Open to suggestions.  Testedonanimalsuk ( talk ) 15:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is this edit addressing anything?  You just removed two unsourced sentences and decline notice (which explicitly tells you not to do so until the article is accepted.) ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry. .  I meant I made edits suggested before the draft article timed out...  I thought I was just late to publishing.  Testedonanimalsuk ( talk ) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You requested undeletion claiming you wanted to make edits but instead simply moved it to article space after only removing two sentences and the decline notice.  The last comment before you unilaterally moved it to articlespace made it clear the article was not approved and wouldn't be without large changes.  None of which you actually made.  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 15:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth noting he's been referenced in exhibitions curated by the Museum of Wales with respect to Welsh Hip Hop Testedonanimalsuk ( talk ) 15:22, 4 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 ) 17:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk ) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Can't find much importance.  The sources  if not all fails WP: SIGCOV.  The subject fails [[WP: NMUSIC].  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 21:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the only real coverage I can find is from 2003 of a failed world record attempt, which is far from notable.  Also it reads like WP:PROMO and nothing is sourced.  InDimensional ( talk ) 23:03, 18 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
Crypto Leaks: Only secondary reliable SIGCOV only trivially mentions Crypto Leaks.  The artticle almost exclusively covers one single leak and the consequences it had for the law firm.  The content would be better served in an article about the law firm and/or the leak, if that would be notable as a stand-alone article.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Cryptocurrency .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Might be a case for the lawyer/law firm to have an article, this anonymous group is mostly mentioned in article surrounding the lawyer.  I don't see enough notability on their own.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another WikiLeaks clone, just with added Web 3.0 baggage to try to compete.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:09, 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
Carl Els: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV .  Contested PROD.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nomination, another player who hasn't received any WP:RS coverage and hence fails WP:SPORTCRIT Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I procedural removed the PROD on this to allow more time to search for sourcing, given there were 23 PRODs to look through in less than a 48 hour period, and a simple search was bringing up potential sourcing.  However, although there is this and a large number of team announcements, there probably isn't enough here to pass WP:GNG , and no suitable redirect per WP:ATD either.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:33, 19 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
Gordon Bell Pianos: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of SIGCOV, fails GNG.  — Prodraxis { talk • contribs } (she/her) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails NCORP.  Simply existing does not declare a company notable.  Graywalls ( talk ) 09:59, 28 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
Criticism of Roadrunner Records: I could have put it on the Roadrunner Records page, but chose not to because it would have taken up a significant amount of space on the page.  In retrospect the page is a bad idea; I feel that it gives undue weight to the criticisms, could be interpreted as defamatory (which was not intentional) and that these criticisms should have been better intergrated into the main page in a MUCH different way.  So I want to delete the page because of undue weight and other related issues with a page like this.  Chchcheckit ( talk ) 15:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , Netherlands ,  and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as attack page.  Carrite ( talk ) 10:06, 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
Screencorder: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve this; I am not an expert in this area so hopefully someone who is can point out if I have missed something.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:PROMOTION .  Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant secondary sources.  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 04:08, 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