hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Seyed Mohammad Ghasemian: Arian ( talk ) 11:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Arian ( talk ) 11:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No indication of notability.  Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG .  Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.  ContributorMix ( talk ) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - probably non-notable.  I ran the article's refs through machine translators that did a poor job; I note that multiple articles came back with Mr. Ghasemian's last name as "Qasemiyaan" or "Qasemian".  Someone who understands Farsi may be better at finding reliable sources than I have been; please ping me if they turn up.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevermind my "probably non-notable" above - definitely delete since I see the nominator is a native Farsi speaker.  Arian , we need good coverage of Iranian topics so I appreciate your work in this space.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He is known as a director and producer on Iranian television and has directed and produced many famous programs on Iranian television.  Rockman2001 ( talk ) 05:16, 28 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
I Love the World: this is their rationale: The current sources for this article utterly fail GNG: the first is a press release and therefore non-independent; the second and third don't relate to the commercial at all; the fourth is a self-published YouTube video and is thus non-independent; the fifth is an entry in a database which provides no critical analysis whatsoever, and also has been dead for six years; and the sixth is a primary source.  I did some looking online but failed to find any reliable, independent, non-blog articles actually discussing this in-depth.  Yes, there's an xkcd comic referencing this, but any sources for that will be focused on the comic as opposed to the commercial.  The article also mentions that it won the silver award at the London International Awards , so maybe it could in theory meet WP:WEBCRIT#2 , but I also couldn't find any reliable, independent, non-blog sources mentioning that either--and given how much the London International Awards article smacks of promotion (it had over 25 references to its own website or to press releases, not including inline external links, before I cut them out), I'm not exactly sure that's even the "world's leading award show" it claims to be (because hey, I could find barely any sources about that awards show either !).  ltb d l ( talk ) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Oh man, this takes me back.  The campaign was famous at the time but I couldn't find anything recent on it, and since the contents of this article have already been copied over to the Discovery Fandom wiki, we wouldn't lose anything by deleting this page.  Moonreach ( talk ) 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly fails GNG.  London International Awards needs to be deleted as well, blatant WP:PROMO and zero GNG passing sources.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 17:47, 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
D&W Performance: It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York , site of its headquarters.  Alansohn ( talk ) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation ,  and New York .  Alansohn ( talk ) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG and NCORP.  Looking for D&W Performance yielded nothing of value.  D&W Diesel, which I think is the same company, has more hits but everything that turns up is trivial coverage.  Pahunkat ( talk ) 14:42, 21 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
Abderrahmane Lounici: Sources used were from the British Broadcasting Corperation.  As someone who lived in leyton for a long period of time, he was a well known individual.  VICE news and Ladbible also confirmed that his name was indeed Abderrahmane Lounici.  Mrm1235 ( talk ) 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Furthermore, the sources are provided from the BBC, more sources will be provided towards the future.  Mrm1235 ( talk ) 18:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Need to include the sources in the article.  The onus is on you (the article creator) to prove notability.  HarrySONofBARRY ( talk ) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i already included the sources in the article, if you actually went on the page you would see this is true.  Furthermore, there is only about 2 newspaper articles about him.  So your in the wrong.  Mrm1235 ( talk ) 09:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source does not cover most of the information included in the article.  For example, the name "Richi" is not mentioned once in the article.  Neither is "Mali Boys".  Nor the Arabic translation.  Drill is not mentioned at all.  etc.  Most of the articles information is therefore original research , which isn't permitted on Wikipedia.  In addition, you haven't properly referenced the information you're using that source for.  Further more, one source in and of itself does not prove notability , which is a requirement for Wikipedia articles.  If there are only 2 articles on the internet about this person, then he most likely is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  I understand this is no doubt frustrating.  I kindly recommend you check out some resources for new editors, WP:FIRST and WP:PRIMER .  For what it's worth, I am familiar with the topic.  HarrySONofBARRY ( talk ) 21:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability requires passage of WP:GNG , which requires a lot more than just one source.  We're not looking just for verification that he exists , we're looking for evidence that the things he did have been externally validated as having enduring significance of the people will still be looking for information about it ten years from now variety, and nothing here has been shown to satisfy that standard.  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay: Early stage career physician.  No indication of being notable.  scope_creep Talk 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete zero coverage for this individual, appears to be working for the government.  Likely PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Google search didn't pull up anything when I tried to search before BLPPRODding it.  Since then, all references added have been primary.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 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
Shelving engineering: This appears just to be a random miscellaneous thing (shelving) that might need to be engineered, like a zillion other forms of "engineering" with no particular name.  E Eng 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Business ,  and Engineering .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Shelves may be objects of engineering as much as cars or buildings, but I can't find any specific secondary sources (some obscure articles discussing the design of shelves but nothing about a distinct discipline).  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:59, 11 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!  07:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Can't find any sources talking about "shelving engineering" whatsoever and even if there were sources they could be easily added under Shelf , which has plenty of space and is not a long article.  Would vote "Merge" except for the lack of significant content or references.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:43, 18 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
Ivy City station: This is one possible station on one of several options for a possible future subway line - there's literally nothing except a single dot on a single map, and nothing resembling significant coverage .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C. .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it's a WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NTRAINSTATION .  Shaws username .  talk .  00:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I see drafts were made for some others as well.  These are purely hypothetical and there is no need for these separate pages whatsoever; the main line articles can mention potential planning.  Reywas92 Talk 00:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – It is a proposed station.  Proposed station are unlikely to have articles if (1) They are not subject to widespread coverage in separate news articles.  There is no dedicated article for the station alone.  (2) It is up to the agency to cancel the station proposal.  With no GNG passable sources, if the proposal would be cancelled/rejected, then this article will simply be useless.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:21, 26 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
David Wike: Co-writer of one notable film, An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn , still does not fulfill WP:NACTOR .  Broc ( talk ) 13:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America .  Broc ( talk ) 13:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 16 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
The Judge Child: I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar."  It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Comics and animation .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Just not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Open to a merge or redirect if any reliable coverage is found at all.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale...  As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none.  As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen.  I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion.  Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial.  To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is seemingly no SIGCOV on this topic.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:52, 4 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
Eric Lilavois: Be that as it may, there are no secondary sources in the article that verify this, and Google (News) offers nothing more: just a few more or less promotional pieces on some websites.  Look in the history for how promotional it really was.  The IP might be User:Olenderj8 , who created this and the companion piece, Crown City Studios .  Drmies ( talk ) 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - While I think the studio is notable (although it's full of blatant promotion), this individual is not even the founder, but one of several current owners.  Or was.   Anyway, there's no indication he produced any of the several notable albums recorded at the studio.  My best efforts at finding sources lead me to believe he doesn't meet any of the WP:NMUSIC criteria, he doesn't meet WP:GNG , and there's not enough available to build a WP:V article substantial enough to meet WP:WHYN .  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet WP:GNG criteria.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:01, 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
Nobody No-One: Literally no sources exist, and he appeared about twice.  Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - unsourced, not well written, is literally a side character in a small production.  100% fails notability so I agree with deletion Frzzl talk · contribs 09:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unsourced fancruft, and I don't use that word lightly.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Without sources this can never meet WP:V or WP:NOT , let alone WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the old notability threshold for Dr. Who characters was seemingly “two appearances”.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Incredibly minor fictional character that only ever appeared in two pieces of completely non-notable Doctor Who spinoff material.  No sources included in the article, and searches brought up no coverage outside of fansites.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:52, 3 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
J.A. Woollam Company: Let'srun ( talk ) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nebraska .  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Barely sourced.  Nothing here supports notability.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NCORP .  I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in secondary sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:01, 18 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
Nhttpd: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources and none found in a WP:BEFORE search.  Tagged for notability and sourcing issues for over a decade.  Jfire ( talk ) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Jfire ( talk ) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot find any independent sources , either.   The article is sourced entirely to documentation supplied by the inventor.   No-one else has apparently ever documented this.  Uncle G ( talk ) 08:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I couldn't find any independent sources as well.  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 01:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, this article was PROD'd in the past so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There's one article about a vulnerability [1] but nothing significant.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 03:04, 13 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
WNKJ-TV: The FCC lists the permit as deleted May 7, 1984.  We do not maintain articles, except in exceptional circumstances, on TV station permits that were not constructed, which applies to WNKJ-TV and the second attempt at the allocation, WKKT-TV.  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that this should have been deprodded and brought to AfD because the case is fairly clear.  For the record, I wrote the prod text which has been copied here and would vote delete .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Given that the only source for the claimed "actual operation" of the station (that apparently never actually happened) was the Broadcasting Yearbook , I feel confident in deeming this another reason why sourcing solely or primarily to databases is not what Wikipedia is looking for in 2024.  We need significant coverage , and stations that never were tend not to get that in the end.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as failing SIGCOV despite (possibly erroneous) database listings.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 18:45, 12 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
Hayden Evans: All coverage is local and/or match reports.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , England ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:16, 30 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