hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Unidad Educativa Bilingue Interamericana: I don't see anything showing why this school is notable, but then I don't speak relevant languages and have no access to sources in Ecuador so am prepared to be proven wrong.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Ecuador .  JMWt ( talk ) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of sources and notability.  I can't find anything out there that would confer notability.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above, does not seem to have enough support for inclusion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:20, 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
Brighton & Hove bus route 2: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per route 1 and 6.  Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources.  Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes .  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:53, 24 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
Pottallinda: Hongsy ( talk ) 14:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:V - Fails verification for the same reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahalevakanda .  Particularly, no source is given where information about the topic can be located and the location given in the article is empty forest in the village of Battagolla .  FOARP ( talk ) 10:03, 30 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
Ardalan Football Academy: I can't see anything notable about this academy, if you google it in English you can't find almost anything about it.  there are some news in Persian mentioning it but this academy didn't do anything special to be notable.  Sports2021 ( talk ) 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Football ,  and Iran .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom, who has done a clear WP:BEFORE check.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:46, 13 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
Stips (Israeli website): An attempted draftification was contested by page creator.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Israel .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, this article is important and should not be deleted.  It's overwhelming Israel recently.  I know the sources are not 100%, but I'm active on the website for almost three years and I'm sure all I wrote is true.  There is a number of independent sources not from Stips and I will probably find more in the future to verify all statements in the article.  אוהד בר-און ( talk ) 09:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ אוהד בר-און : What you have written is probably true, however being active on the website and reporting your findings to Wikipedia is original research , which is disallowed on Wikipedia.  We also need multiple significant reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG , which is Wikipedia's fundamental notability guideline.  Failing it (which this article does in my opinion) is valid grounds for deletion.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I can find 10 more independent sources, will my article be spared?  אוהד בר-און ( talk ) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not about how many sources you find.  The most important thing, along with being independent, is that they give lots of information about the subject instead of just mentioning it.  And it might be helpful to remember that articles on Wikipedia don't belong to anyone ; it's an article that you gave to Wikipedia.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that this article should be deleted, even though the sources aren't the best (probably because there are only few sources in English about this Israeli site).  The article is written nicely and clearly, there's no appropriate reason to delete it.  מיכאל גנפולסקי ( talk ) 21:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can use Hebrew-language sources here, if you need to.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree with nominator as sources are not independent and therefore doesn’t meet GNG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 15:17, 3 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!  05:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless someone can provide sources independent of the topic that cover it in detail.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:47, 17 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
Art Matthews: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete we would need more sources or evidence that he meets some criteria in WP:MUSICBIO .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 19:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - He looks like a longtime studio sideman in the jazz community who got some notable associates to play on his own album, but that's all I can find on him.  No biographical information in reliable sources or any pro reviews of his one album.  The album is only visible in basic directory listings, and it was released in 1978, contrary to what this article says.  Not enough for a WP article.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:58, 13 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
Tony Hinnigan: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians ,  and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Notability not established Coldupnorth ( talk ) 09:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SNOW .  All three external inks are not reliable sources .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails notability and WP:MUSICBIO.  Unable to find any additional news about this person.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 03:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Easy delete per the comments here.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As stated above there is nothing to show the sort of notability that would be needed for an article.  Dunarc ( talk ) 22:46, 6 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
Torrey Loomis: I couldn't find anything substantial written about him.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very promotional, fails WP:GNG with nothing online.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Photography ,  and Police .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per JML1148.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are numerous brief mentions of Loomis in the 2009–2011 period.  Related to his law enforcement career there is some fairly lengthy coverage of his 2000 'Cop of the Year' award and his 2002 felony conviction.  Loomis is SV cop of the year Loomis admits to filing false report Cop's arrest shakes S.V. department (part  1) Cop's arrest shakes S.V. department (part  2) Gold River film company snags stars Area banks get close-up as film exec blogs on loan search Gab4gab ( talk ) 22:15, 22 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
Datu Mombao Romato: As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability.  Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG , references are to facebook posts and reports (primary).  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as of now, not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG.  Was only able to find five mentions of this person, all of which were mere mentions in lists.  — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per nominator TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 13:23, 24 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
Runcorn Indians: A low-level club with no indication of notability.  A few notable players have passed through, but as stated in WP:NTEAM : the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - agree with the lack of notability (many of the refs are primary, external links are dead, etc.) for the club rather than the players.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject plainly does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:ORG .  User:Let'srun 01:10, 21 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
Luno (band): Not notable in any way.  FromCzech ( talk ) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After careful consideration of the article on Luno (band), the appropriate action according to Wikipedia's guidelines is deletion.  The subject does not meet the notability criteria outlined in the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the Music Notability Guideline (MUSIC).  Despite a detailed history and discography, the band lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its lasting impact or significance in the music industry.  The sources cited primarily consist of routine coverage such as local newspapers and self-published content, failing to demonstrate the widespread recognition required for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Therefore, deletion is recommended to maintain Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability.  This decision aligns with ensuring the integrity and quality of content available to Wikipedia's readership.  Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh?  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AI-generated comment FromCzech ( talk ) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: If I were closing, I would ignore the AI-generated delete ! vote.However, that leaves this with no discussion yet and therefore relist becomes necessary.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - although the Ceska televize source seems good, there is nothing else reliable here, and the article itself seems to be mainly a rewording of the band members' names again and again.  Fails notability criteria.  C 679 12:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - agree with above, Bduke ( talk ) 23:51, 23 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
Jose Julio Cabanillas Serrano: Only one published work as per this source .  Nirva20 ( talk ) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find any book reviews in Spanish, no luck at AUTHOR.  Spanish wiki only has one source, I don't think we have enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Poetry ,  and Spain .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lokotim ( talk ) 18:06, 17 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
Bjarne Stugu: Tagged for notability since 2021.  As typical with people involved in high-energy experiments, he has a huge number of articles ( Inspire-HEP lists 2388).  But articles from such experiments typically have a very long author list and it is not possible to distinguish individual contributions.  Inspire-HEP also allows filtering for papers with 10 authors or less.  This list includes 16 papers with very few citations.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 07:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science ,  and Norway .  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 07:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG as outlined by the nominator.  PianoDan ( talk ) 20:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete - I concur with the nomination and PianoDan, there is no clear indication of notability.  Neither in the article nor is there any media coverage of him to indicate that he may pass WP:NPROF .  Doesnt pass the average professor test.  Being part of a large collaboration is not enough for NPROF.  -- hroest 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Particle physics is often hard to judge from citations because there are many papers with both huge numbers of coauthors and huge numbers of citations and it's hard to tell how to count these.  In this case searching for author:b-stugu finds exactly that.  (Including his first name for specificity doesn't work because there are so many authors that they limit names to initials to save space.)  So we need either well-cited first-author papers, or some form of external recognition that would help us sort it out.  Here we appear to have neither.  The best I found was a single-author paper with single-digit citations, "Summary on tau leptonic branching ratios and universality".  As hroest says, having a small part in a large collaboration is not enough.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As David Eppstein explains above, the citability record here is insufficiently convincing to indicate notability.  The subject's CV [32] does not appear to contain any other information that would indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds, such as journal editorships, awards, honors, etc.  Nsk92 ( talk ) 12:52, 23 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
John David Larson: From tribute from his company and obit , I find no other evidence that he was notable businessman.  Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military ,  and Wisconsin .  Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Can't find SIGCOV.  〜 Festucalex • talk 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found no substantial coverage to base WP:ANYBIO .  This subject does not approach any special guidelines or policies on account of his rank.  We will all have obits online as long as we don't die too far yesterday.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I expanded the article with information about his civilian work, and I noticed some volunteer activity in his obituary, but probably not enough to pass notability.  In general, though, military personnel are often notable for their accomplishments in civilian life as well.  There's something hidden behind a paywall at https://madison.com/news/local/obituaries/larson-john-david/article_a431f806-f336-5d73-b721-4f845637b6fa.html Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn’t meet notability or SIGCOV guidelines.  I vote to delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 15:16, 29 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
Capital Match: BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The first reference is from The Straits Times , the newspaper of record in Singapore, and the rest seem fine to me, whether or not they have a paywall.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have access to it and have read it.  All the references to the subject are neither independent nor deep enough.  Here is the typical coverage from The Straits Times, a source you mentioned: Mr Pawel Kuznicki, 29, director of P2P platform Capital Match, says: "It's more accurate to say that crowdlending is leveraging on technology to service smaller clients which banks may not be able to. BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a "newspaper of record" might be helpful in determining whether a source is reliable, but does nothing to determine whether the content contains in-depth Independent Content and meets NCORP criteria. The "rest" seeming "fine" also doesn't have any bearing on GNG/NCORP criteria - which ones in particular (page/paragraph) contains content that meets the criteria? HighKing ++ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:27, 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 .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , coverage completely fails the independence standards set out by NCORP, with sources based around what the company says rather than secondary independent analysis.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:33, 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