hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of deserters from James II to William of Orange: That part is an appendix titled "Principal Persons who Joined the Prince of Orange", which draws from memoirs of the 2nd Earl of Chesterfield and a book by William Dugdale .  Still, it is just Dugdale and Cokayne's judgement of who are "principal" enough to be listed.  I do not see that every list from The Complete Peerage is notable as a stand-alone list article, especially given the large number of people deserted to William during the Glorious Revolution.  Given that there are quite a few unknown personnel (such as "Squire Bray") in the list, it seems better off to have the deserters in a category rather than a stand-alone list.  ネイ ( talk ) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Royalty and nobility ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It's essentially a straight copy of the Complete Peerage, so this is better suited to wikisource or a category.  Celia Homeford ( talk ) 09:21, 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
Captain Submarine: Fails WP:GNG .  747pilot ( talk ) 22:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Canada .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   All I found was this 2002 press release when it was purchased by Grinnel Foods and a passing mention in this 2017 article in Canadian Business magazine which primarily talks about how an investment group that owns Grinnel turned around one of their other companies.  – Reidgreg ( talk ) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Despite the company's longevity, its notability is not strong enough to merit an article.  The Captain Submarine chain is certainly notable at a Canadian level, but that is about it.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Fails WP:GNG .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:00, 25 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
Ronald "Ron" Jones: Not seeing WP:SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE ... ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana .  Shellwood ( talk ) 01:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest .  His original post was just his unsourced autobiography.  The few cites listed were added by later editors.  Even with that, nothing of substance comes up on a Google search, except to produce links for multiple others with similar names.  This doesn't belong on Wikipedia — Maile ( talk ) 01:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The "diverse career as a versatile musician" reads as PR copy.  I can't find mentions of this person.  Some hits on the name for other people, mostly the actor from "This Is Us" that died.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Maile, fails WP:N in general.  dxneo ( talk ) 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:N , as mentioned above.  Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 12:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not too much coverage to meet notability.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:11, 30 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
B1gMail: Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : unable to find sources per WP:GNG on Google or Google Books, also fails WP:NSOFT .  — Matrix(!) { user - talk?  - useless contributions } 16:57, 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
Nico du Plessis: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV are transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 ) JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:58, 18 April 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 ) 04:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:39, 18 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
Endocentric environment: No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt ( talk ) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was not able to find any sources that are not simply mirrors of this article.  Even if there is demand for information on the term, we obviously need sources to back up the claim of what this term means.  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I got zero hits in the Ebsco database, zero in G-Books.  If this were a thing there would be evidence.  (I actually like the term; too bad it didn't get traction.)  Lamona ( talk ) 15:43, 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
List of World of Watches characters: Hard to look up any sources, as most results of "world of watches" concern the timepiece, but even a search with author name Lukyanenko bring up very little.  Suitable for a dedicated fansite or Fandom wiki.  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Film ,  and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  WP:BEFORE didn't reveal enough for WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:56, 14 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
Quinni-Con: Tagged for notability since 2018.  Unable to find sources.  A small college convention with almost no indication of importance, fails WP:NEVENT .  Charcoal feather ( talk ) 06:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga , Events ,  and United States of America .  Charcoal feather ( talk ) 06:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only source I could fine that did in-depth coverage was a college newspaper, and only one of those articles covered the convention and wasn't written like a press release.  There's just not enough to establish notability.  Esw01407 ( talk ) 13:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks any of the necessary coverage.  Nothing in the way even after extensive searching that would indicate independent notability.  PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; not seeing any quality secondary sourcing that shows this convention meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG .  Link20XX ( talk ) 06:02, 18 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
Didmar Duro: Best source I can find is Fortuna Regensburg , which is a blog with a passing mention of him and also non-independent due to being his employer.  Looks like he fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Albania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles and stats, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 18 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
Cenk Telkiviran Orchestra: The topic here lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources.  The sources in the article read promotional and are obviously paid-for.  They heavily rely on quotes by band members or the founder, so they wouldn't be independent regardless.  This source in similar style is tagged as sponsored, but not all Turkish publications make these disclosures.  Apart from the promos, there are no additional sources for this to be notable.  Styyx ( talk ) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey .  Styyx ( talk ) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the article reads more like a biography of the founder.  Similarly, I could not find much about him.  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I know the incident from trwiki.  The article fails WP:GNG . -- Kadı Message 09:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no notability.  Tehonk ( talk ) 22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Phillip P. DiLucente: The only sources that I found mentioning him are just stating he's the defense attorney.  No WP:SIGCOV .  APK whisper in my ear 05:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I believe the article should not be deleted, and that Phillip P. DiLucente meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG criteria.  While it's true some sources only mention him as the defense attorney, several others offer significant coverage.  He has represented high-profile clients in notable cases [1] [2] [3] .  He has also received an award voted by the readers of a local paper [4] , indicating notability beyond his role as an attorney.  I have revised the article to remove any potential promotional language and provided a more neutral tone.  I suggest that the article be improved rather than deleted.  Cbloise242 ( talk ) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm getting "404 - Page Not Found" for the Post Gazette links.  But the titles suggest it's not specifically about DiLucente.  Please read WP:SIGCOV .  APK whisper in my ear 10:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see, okay, allow me to address those issues.  Thanks for your attention Cbloise242 ( talk ) 13:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, to the best of my knowledge I have addressed those issues.  Please let me know if I am mistaken.  Thank you for your time.  Cbloise242 ( talk ) 13:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is just straight up promotional, and the sourcing doesn't pass GNG either.  All of the articles appear to be about cases he's been in just looking at the headlines, and not about significant coverage of him.  If kept, it reads promotionally enough that it should be TNT'd and re-created.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The linked articles in this discussion also do not pass GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 21:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Former Pittsburgh police officer sexual assault hearing" .  www.post-gazette.com .  ^ "Former Allegheny County councilman charged with DUI" .  triblive.com .  ^ "Former West Mifflin school board member pleads guilty to theft charges" .  www.post-gazette.com .  ^ "Best Attorney" .  www.pghcitypaper.com .  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
SeeVolution: Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent or unreliable.  Originally PRODed, but missed this previous AfD which unanimously favoured deletion.  – Tera tix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software , Websites ,  and California .  – Tera tix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 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 .  Fails AfD in 2012 and still fails today.  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did do a quick BEFORE anyway (and I really do mean quick , there were only 2 google news results, for example, and one of them was about a different topic, as are the hits in scholarly sources, nothing relevant in books, TWL databases don't have anything relevant that aren't press releases, etc).  I do see some of their products were acquired by Bridgeline Digital , which is a listed company that we might have been able to redirect to if not for the fact that that company doesn't have an article right now.  I don't think a previous deletion via AFD should block a PROD (for recreations that are not G4) though to be honest I'm inclined to speedy delete via A7 for this one, I can't see any plausible CCSI.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:28, 1 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
Chelsea Shields: Lacks WP:SIGCOV .  US-Verified ( talk ) 18:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Latter Day Saints , Oregon ,  and Utah .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations by the same nominator, all of women academics.  This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics.  If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator does not seem to disproportionately nominate articles on women for deletion, see here .  Mooonswimmer 01:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators.  Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk ( User:Chiserc ) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable person, entrepreneur.  I found [6] , but I don't think it's the same person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , non-notable academic.  Mooonswimmer 01:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pass of WP:Prof yet.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  Sources are mostly her works, and to be notable they suppose to be about her.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 06:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Karnataka ( talk ) 09:43, 18 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
Scout Benson: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Puerto Rico ,  and Massachusetts .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Probably fails WP:1E and WP:SPORTSPERSON .  Her biography on the Bryant Bulldogs website covers her college career well enough, and her one goal referenced for the PR National Football team is not enough on its own to warrant an article.  Agentdoge ( talk ) 21:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:04, 22 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
Mark Pearlman: Promotional in nature and references are suspect.  Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 05:42, 6 September 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 September 6 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has existed since 2009 and appears adequately referenced to confirm notability.  I removed hyperlinks.  David notMD ( talk ) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob Delete - I could be wrong because  a) my searches are not coming up with much due to several people having the same name and  b) the sources on the page being IMO pretty poor.  However, my guess is that the coverage is weak.  I'm open to changing my mind if a keep ! voter shows me some sources that unambiguously meet the GNG.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I concur with JMWt's reasoning.  The referencing relies heavily on non-RS, such as podcasts on iTunes and PR, as well as the subjects own work.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Looks like a resume, don't see the SIGCOV in RS needed to establish N. Fails GNG Jacona ( talk ) 18:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete