hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
David Barratt : Article is a mess of promotional content and puffery backed by dubious sourcing (own websites, IMDb, and Amazon).  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , England ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : found no additional coverage.  If The Beatles Complete On Ukulele gets kept at its AfD then redirect there instead.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 11:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : non-notable and promotional article.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 18:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , promotional article with insufficient sourcing.  Suonii180 ( talk ) 10:15, 4 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
David Macmillan : WP:BEFORE search wasn't helped with how common is name is but also searched with his middle names and that didn't bring up much either.  Suonii180 ( talk ) 12:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , United Kingdom ,  and Scotland .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 12:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This article qualifies for deletion as being an unsourced BLP alone, regardless of notability.  -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete as mentioned above.  Skt34 ( talk ) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike.  Daniel ( talk ) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete I think that an being an unsourced BLP is a speedy deletion criteria.  If so, Speedy Delete Industrial Insect (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television , Theatre ,  and Advertising .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I added a couple of references about his theatre credits.  Clearly, this should not be speedy deleted.   The question is, did his TV roles make him notable?   There does not seem to be a lot about him on Google, but most of his acting career was in the 1960s, so someone needs to look back at newspaper archives and other non-Google sources of the decade and also of the 1990s, when he returned in older roles.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ssilvers : I don't think the additional sources show sufficient notability.  They both relate to the Importance of Being Earnest but the first source focuses on shows that have been held at the Chichester Theatre and mentions in passing that he was in the production while the second source has a bio for the subject but only details his appearance in the Importance of Being Earnest and doesn't go into detail about him or his other work.  Through my WP:BEFORE search while nominating him I looked at newspapers.com and focused my search on the 60s.  This didn't bring up anything which I thought passed GNG.  I've searched again to include his work from the 1990s as I can't remember if I included this in my original search.  His work is mostly character acting and I haven't found newspaper sources which go into the same depth of detail as they would for someone who had bigger roles.  Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review sources added during this discussion and whether they demonstrate notability.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:43, 26 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
Thanatonic nihilism : It seems to be original research or at least synth, and I think it was a very interesting read but probably the wrong forum.   I found one use of it in a psychoanalysis journal- I don't have the full text to link to, but the name of the article is 'Anal sexuality and male subcultures online: The politics of self-deprecation in the deep vernacular web'.  Overall, this is not a term used in reliable sources and this article is synthesis, drawing from poetry and philosophy to introduce this term.  An IP editor also noted this in the page history.  JohnmgKing ( talk ) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  JohnmgKing ( talk ) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MADEUP - This is very clearly nothing, even accounting for the misspelling in the typo, " thanatotic nihilism" gets no results from jstor and only two in google scholar.  It's unclear why anyone would WP:RFUD this, it shows a complete lack of judgement.  - car chasm ( talk ) 01:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non notable neologism ( t · c ) buidhe 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Complete junk with no redeeming features.  Neologism.  scope_creep Talk 05:09, 22 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
Jake Dan-Azumi : Occupying the position of Chief of Staff to the Speaker of a House of Representatives does not make a subject presumptively notable.  This subject also fails WP:GNG in general.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 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
Carl Judie : In a WP:BEFORE search, all I can find on him is blogs and WP:THESUN .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some coverage around his death, but does not seem to have earned critical attention.  I can't find anything else about the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are 3 citations used in this article.  It should pass WP:GNG by a small margin.  If not,  this article can be renamed to Death of Carl Judie , as the citations are somewhat leaning towards his death.  There's definitely some more parts of the citations that could be used to strengthen the article somewhat.  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the three references you've cited is that they're all blog posts, rather than WP:Reliable sources .  A hundred blog references like that still wouldn't demonstrate notability: we're looking for coverage in newspapers, books, films, etc, showing how Judie was notable enough for an encyclopedia article.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails NACTOR, and I'm not really seeing a case for WP:GNG either. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and those above.  Sources are below the threshold for inclusion.  BD2412 T 00:42, 4 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
2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash : Fails the general notability guideline , the event criteria and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects .  Accident barely has any coverage whatsoever.  I've only been able to find three news channels covering it including two in french and one in english: NBC news ; Congo Planète (French); AllAfrica (French).  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation , Africa ,  and Democratic Republic of the Congo .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 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
Monkey Bone (disambiguation) : {{ one other topic }} was added 4 months ago, and no entries have been added to the page since – the only thing that seems like a potential new entry would be the literal bone of a monkey, but Monkey doesn't go into the skeletal structures of monkeys, and I don't know where else on Wikipedia that information would be, so there's no article to link to.  A previous entry of "a monkey 's bone " was refactored into the lede in 2009, before being removed when the {{ one other topic }} template was added.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Monkey Bone Records redirects to Alternate Records & Talents , and Monkey Bone should be redirected to Monkeybone , thus averting the need for a dab in the first place, with the hatnotes handling the gruntwork; the confusion between a Malaysian record label and American 2000s film is virtually nil.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : hatnotes do the work.  Pam D 07:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Though unlike previous poster, I'd leave Monkey Bone redirecting to the record company, while Monkeybone is the film; hatnotes are already in place at both targets.  Pam D 07:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , hatnotes should suffice.  Persent101 ( talk ) 20:46, 19 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
Damian Prosalendis : Most sources are primary and/or unreliable.  I count three sources affiliated with the subject and four social media links as references.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The second, fifth, ninth, twentieth, and twenty-third sources are YouTube videos.  The fifteenth, sixteenth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eight are primary sources, directly affiliated with the subject.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the article meets the notability and verification criteria.  I put those social media links because they were accurate references to the topic.  However, if those links make the article seem like an advertisement, I could replace them with other references.  In addition to that, the sources are not unreliable since most of them are verified websites that exist for years, such us the interview websites.  Some of them are primary, but the information of the references exists in almost all of them.  HustlerLFG ( talk ) 19:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't use interviews as sourcing, and youtube isn't a reliable source either.  What you're left with after removing these isn't enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Sportspeople , Martial arts , United Arab Emirates ,  and Greece .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet GNG or NPOV Nswix ( talk ) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Every single source that isn't youtube or other random social media posts was SEO junk - several were actual fake PR/blogs used for blackhat promotional nonsense.  The creator even used blacklisted PR sources by using fake URLs.  I've trimmed all of the garbage PR sources out - not much really usable left.  Searches return just the usual promotional SEO stuff - nothing really notable or usable.  I would have absolutely G11ed this if you had tagged it as such - I suppose we can let the process run.  Sam Kuru (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - pure spam Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  red flag #1 "entrepreneur", red flag #2 "crypto".  What's left?  A Greek person that is online?  Zero sources that are RS, rest is fluffy spam stuff.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:23, 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
Fanai Lalmuanpuia : In my own searches, I can't find evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC .  The sources that I found were Asian Age , Herald Goa and Rediff but these are only trivial mentions of the subject.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India ,  and Mizoram .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 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
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2009 jurors : Any known jurors are already included in the individual articles outlining a country's participation in the event (e.g. Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 ), and although the list is not directly affected by WP:ONEEVENT , there is an indirect relationship that would bring into question the necessity of a list for all jurors in a given year, given the notability of the individuals listed.  As all information is already listed elsewhere merging is not required, and keeping as a redirect would not serve a purpose given the lack of related material in any one target.  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Music , and Television .  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above: List of Eurovision Song Contest 2010 jurors ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 jurors ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Eurovision Song Contest 2015 jurors ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Eurovision Song Contest 2018 jurors ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Eurovision Song Contest 2019 jurors ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Delete .  I've known that these lists existed, but I never felt the need to use or update them.  I think that speaks to their utility (or lack thereof).  The respective jurors are also listed in each country's "country in ESC year" article, but are also included in each country's summary article .  As noted, a lot of these jurors are average citizens with roles that are typically just music-focused in government, media, etc.  As such, a vast majority do not and will not have articles.  It was fun to sort them by birthdate on one of the articles, but I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do.  The amount of information about each years' jurors also varies, so it's difficult to have one format that works for all of them.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 13:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Essentially, this is just a list of non-notable people.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:26, 30 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in Kosovo : Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Europe ,  and Kosovo .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (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!  19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is just a directory.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:03, 11 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
WEPA-CD : PROD was objected by the article creator with the rationale that the station is verified to have existed, but existence doesn't equate to notability.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  – Hilst [talk] 22:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - couldn't find any independent coverage.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 19:55, 6 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