hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Tech abuse clinic: It has been tagged for several months as non-notable, and the creator suggested at the talk page that they might write an article themselves to be published and  used as a source to establish notability.  There are no new, independent secondary sources that would establish notability.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough citations and references.  The article is not notable enough.  killer bee 05:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the article talk page, the creator, while adding a ref from a connected source, acknowledged that there is a lack of secondary coverage.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I do not think there are enough articles covering tech abuse clinics in general.  It would seem the article originated from this website which groups two of the three organisations: [4] .  For TECC, we have [5] and [6] , and for CETA we have [7] , [8] , and non-significant coverage at [9] , [10] .  So at least two of these three orgs are independently notable, but the grouping in the article is not.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 14:17, 25 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
Adam Chorneyko: Zero secondary sources cited, zero passable secondary sources found through a web search.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions .  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Jaguarnik ( talk ) 07:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , career stats don't meet WP:NHOCKEY , and references provided are basically all team announcements.  PK T (alk) 13:33, 28 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
Tesfay Abraha: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling ,  and Africa .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Cant find much on him.  Seacactus 13 ( talk ) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Regrettably, I find myself in agreement with this deletion nomination, in accordance with the unyielding 'SIGCOV' policy.  Yet, our adherence to this rule threatens to erase a vibrant tale of an African cyclist, thus exacerbating an unfortunate, unintended bias against Africa.  This bias, I fear, undermines our mission's spirit, as it obscures the diverse tapestry of global narratives.  Consequently, while I support this motion, I do so with a sombre heart and an appeal for the reconsideration of our policies.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCYC .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:52, 19 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
Tempus Nova: I couldn't find any sigcov on a WP:BEFORE , and it's an American company so I probably didn't miss any sources in other languages.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I found a Wall Street Journal reference but appears to be more of a routine announcement of an investment.  Everything else is business directory listings and brief mentions.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NCORP no independent sources with any depth.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NCORP also I believe fails WP:SIGCOV .  Equine-man ( talk ) 18:28, 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
Premium Prestige: Sourced with unreliable references.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , Entertainment , Organizations , Companies ,  and Italy .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it fails WP:NCORP .  - Amigao ( talk ) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sure, it existed but this is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 15:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Enthira Kaalai: RemotelyInterested ( talk ) 12:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : joyful trivialities, sacrificed on the insatiable alter of bureaucratic guidelines Jack4576 ( talk ) 12:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I failed to find suitable coverage in reliable sources.  I may have missed sources not in English - please ping me if good sources are identified.  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 23:58, 21 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
Atala T: – Tera tix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet ,  and New York .  – Tera tix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NCORP with absolutely no sources on this subject.  Looks like the original creator just recreated the deleted article 15 years ago and no one noticed until now.  Better late than never.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:CORPDEPTH .  A search of the company name brings up no relevant information or coverage (other than the wiki article itself).  ADifferentMan ( talk ) 02:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Half the sources are deadlinks and the other don't contain the company's name, clearly not notable enough.  — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 11:49, 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
Download Accelerator Plus: Was previously nominated and kept with only 2 contributors with no real policy argument as to why it should be kept other than finding some reviews.  The references are 80% primary sources and a not great review.  I don't find anything that makes any note of this actually being notable software other than having appears in a couple of download accelerator lists (possibly because there weren't that many of them and they usually didn't work as advertised and are a dead software end.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , not notable, no coverage, just passing mentions.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The software seems to still be available, at least there is a web site for downloading it.  I found the page on their site that purported to link to reviews, but I struck out on all of them.  At most I found re-listings of the company info about the software.  I'm not finding anything of substance; the best has been a CNET review from 2002.  Lamona ( talk ) 21:43, 25 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
Cremilda Santana: It fails WP:N , WP:ANYBIO , WP:ARTIST and any other notability criteria.  In-depth coverage about this person can't be found anywhere.  Also, it seems a case of WP:PAID and cross-wiki spam, since all the articles about this person in the other WPs were created by the same account/editor.  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women ,  and Brazil .  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:56, 18 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
IC 3402: C messier ( talk ) 16:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep IC 3402.  I firmly believed the article can be expanded with more references possibility meeting Wikipedia's guidelines.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 05:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've found multiple reliable sources for IC 3402 and added them inside the article.  Hopefully it can meet notability guidelines.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, do you mind listing them here?  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 11:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ. ..320.. .96G/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A%26AS. ..86..109G/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ. ..342..718G/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4336M/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999BSAO. ..47.. ..5K/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AN....314.. .97K/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122..714B/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3749Y/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS. .220.. ..3K/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ. ..788.. .45T/abstract https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abb66b https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/ac626b Galaxybeing ( talk ) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the sources I've found online so far Galaxybeing ( talk ) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are all listings in tables with objects, they don't provide significant commentary on this specific galaxy.  Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage.  (from WP:NASTCRIT )  C messier ( talk ) 13:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, these sources provide no significant commentary on this object.  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : yet another galaxy that is in a bunch of catalog papers but not notable itself.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination Sir MemeGod . _.  ( talk - contribs - created articles ) 03:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : it shows up in a few studies, but without substantial coverage.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:40, 25 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
Saeed Reza Khoshshans: ( One source might qualify, but we need multiple.)  The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iran .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't find coverage in Jstor, Gbooks or Gscholar, so I'm not sure what else can be found...  Delete for a lack of sourcing; happy to revisit if other sources can be found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:53, 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
2021 Damascus bus bombing: Ecrusized ( talk ) 13:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Terrorism ,  and Syria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:49, 21 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
Mankind vs. The Undertaker (Boiler Room Brawl): Sources mention details about the match, but not why the match independently notable.  Most of the article is taken up by a plot summary, while the "Legacy" section just mentions future storyline developments.  Wikipedia is not a summary-only description of works.  Also fails WP:PWMATCH / WP:LASTING .  — Czello ( music ) 07:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  — Czello ( music ) 07:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - doesn't need a standalone article separate to the event at which it took place.   If any Taker-Foley match merits a standalone article, it's their Hell in a Cell match, which has a massive legacy, not this one.... .  -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 08:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable pro wrestling match suitable for Fandom wikis.  -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 08:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Pretty clearly not notable. LM2000 ( talk ) 10:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am the creator of this article. I found an [36] that supports this match's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysses Grant Official ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources the source in question is unreliable so it can’t be used to demonstrate notability, or in other words is useless to support the match being important.-- 67.70.144.202 ( talk ) 02:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, The Sportster should never be used for any reason.   It also takes multiple sources to demonstrate notability ( WP:GNG ).  LM2000 ( talk ) 03:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sportskeeda is an unreliable source too, and the article relies on stuff by TheSportster and Sportskeeda (5/6 citations).  The reliability of the remaining source (Kee On Sports Media Group) for pro wrestling content is uncertain.  The match itself is not something special/notable outside of wrestling community.  A notable PW match is something like Montreal Screwjob or Mankind vs. The Undertaker .  -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 05:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per others.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 15:57, 2 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
3LOGY: A WP:BEFORE check only found the one source already in the article.  — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t ; c ) 16:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines .  — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t ; c ) 16:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: For now, I will not vote keep or delete, but I have found sources for the article, I don't know if these sources are reliable : [10] [11] [12] .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 09:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Tempo is a tabloid .  After checking their about sections, I learned that the other two are blogs.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources that came up are from GMA Network which developed this band in the first place. No independent hits on GNews and GNews Archives. Furthermore, Google search provides false positives due to the 2016 3LOGY concert [13] [14] . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't even think it reached notability in the Philippines to a reasonable level that would warrant a Wikipedia article of its own.  --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Coverage is thin now but the three members, Abel Estanislao , Jeric Gonzales and Jak Roberto , appear to now be notable musicians so I expect ongoing interest on this topic from readers and further coverage to be found.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't create articles based on the assumption that sources may exist at some indefinite point in the future.  Also, notability is not inherited .  — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t ; c ) 21:04, 29 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
Madyina Ngulube: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I came across was a couple sentences of coverage here , as well as this transactional announcement.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 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