hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari: However, it appears that the subject of the article still lacks notability on their own, as the positions mentioned in the infobox and lead are not considered notable.  Additionally, the article violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV, and it's important to note that notability is not inherited.  Saqib ( talk ) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Education ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP She is also Chairperson of SZABIST .  -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Chancellor may be considered a notable title or office, but Chairperson of SZABIST Foundation is not. For those unaware, she holds the position of Chairperson at a university established by her mother Benazir Bhutto and named after her maternal grandfather Zulfikar Ali Bhutto . notability is not inherited.-- Saqib ( talk ) 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The first source [2] was being a "trustee" of an institution which is not the highest level per WP:ACADEMIC .  The second to fifth source here [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] were all indirectly referencing her family which is WP:BIOFAMILY and from the tone sounds WP:SPIP .  These sources at the "Personal life" [7] and [8] were about her marriage which doesn't count to notability except at an exclusive one per WP: 1EVENT .  The 16 citation on politics fails WP: NPOL .  The politics section cited by [9] and [10] inclusively on promoting the subject which fails criteria for WP: WWIN and WP: NOTWEBHOST .  In essence, from the previous deletion, it's seems the subject was written WP: UPE where it has per discussion not attain notability.  It is also noteworthy to say Notability is not inherited .  There can be too many sources .  Yet, no way to a standalone article.  But for WP: PRESERVE , few information may be added to " Bhutto family " as I saw in the "See also" section of the page!  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Otuọcha's excellent analysis demonstrates WP:PROF and WP:BIO are not met.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:51, 23 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
Rinus Bothma: JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:40, 23 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
Kevena Reid: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Jamaica .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 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
Brenda Siegel: As always, non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either  (a) they already have some other claim of notability for some other reason besides being an unsuccessful election candidate, or  (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring importance.  But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election can always show, which does not constitute evidence that she's earned special treatment that other unelected candidates aren't getting.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Vermont .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Limited coverage after the election, this is all I find [4] .  If there were a few more articles, I'd be ok as she would be a notable activist.  Otherwise, not meeting BLP.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete we have a long standing policy that one does not get a Wikipedia page simply for having lost an election.  She can be adequately covered on the pages for the elections in which she was a candidate.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:09, 15 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
Qaum: Both sources used are just for the English word.  At one stage this was a redirect to Nation, but this doesn't meet the usual expectation for cross-language redirects of specific relevance.  Also of note is that the ar.wiki article ar:قوم is not about Nation , but a short stub about something else.  Originally this article was a redirect to Qawm , but it is not mentioned there and I'm unsure if that is also a cross-language redirect.  CMD ( talk ) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  CMD ( talk ) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Dicdef.  Desertarun ( talk ) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete gosh this has been knocking about for twenty years!  Just a dictionary definition of a word in another language.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:39, 24 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
Ferdinand Jay Smith III: This person is not notable outside of his local geography.  Kingturtle = ( talk ) 07:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the person is clearly not notable and does not pass General Notability.  -- 88.214.186.108 ( talk ) 11:59, 24 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
2008 Claxton Shield team rosters: Delete per WP:GNG , WP:NOTDIR , and WP:NLIST .  Non-notable list of players.  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not only is this a non-notable list of players with zero sources cited, it includes a long list of DOB (date of birth) information for non-notable individuals, which violates their privacy and does not belong on Wikipedia.  (The "External links" may suggest that that is where the information comes from, but this is also not easily verifiable when you look at those sites; in any case, the team rosters themselves aren't notable, and I would also note that the parent page 2008 Claxton Shield lacks sources as well and have tagged it as such.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:46, 7 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
Mitch Beardmore: The only article that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [16] which includes a lot of quotes from Exeter's manager but very little specifically about Beardmore.  The article fails WP:GNG .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is probably just WP:TOOSOON .  SportingFlyer T · C 20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Professional footballer who has had seven matchday squads at League One level in the 2022–23 season and likely many more to come in the 2023–24 season. -- Echetus X e 12:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those criteria do not count towards WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , player just made his debut in highly covered league.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  20:17, 28 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
Jolly Mazimhaka: Searching in google news, google scholar and JSTOR yields very little.  Fails WP:BIO , WP:AUTHOR , WP:ACADEMIC .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Rwanda .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG .  See WP:NOTINHERITED .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete Subject not notable neither does it passes WP:GNG . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article lists authorship of two books.  If it is possible to find reliably published reviews of these (not pay-for-play newspaper placements), then WP:AUTHOR might be in play.  I did not find any reviews in academic sources but there might be other types of source that my searches didn't cover.  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
Bio Base Europe: Cornmazes ( talk ) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —No SIGCOV.  〜 Festucalex • talk 04:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete also for NPOV reasons -- 11 years and no editor has been able to fix.  — siro χ o 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Economics , Technology , Belgium ,  and Netherlands .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:POV to extent of WP:TNT and WP:TOOEARLY .  Some coverage exists, especially in Belgium's large HLN daily.  It's more than trivial but less than SIGCOV.  I strongly recommend cleaning up the articles that link to the AfDd article as well! gidonb ( talk ) 00:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The whole article reads like a non-objective promotional piece and was created and written almost entirely by two users which appear to be single-purpose accounts dedicated to this promotional article ( Special:Contributions/Hwaegemn_bbepp and Special:Contributions/Lievehoflack and IP editor Special:Contributions/78.21.5.6 have never contributed to any other articles ever).  All other accounts contributed and insignificant amount of content.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 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
Ghislain Cordeel: Merge into his brother Amaury 's page at least, but Ghislain's career is completely irrelevant to Amaury's, so maybe fully delete Ghislain's page.  - 2A01:36D:1200:4672:44C3:46D:541B:FBBF ( talk ) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The nomination is totally flawed, seeing as the article makes no attempt to ride on the coattails of Amaury Cordeel.  In fact, Amaury Cordeel is not mentioned at all.  Can you please try again to explain why this should be deleted, and this time relate Ghislain Cordeel to the relevant guidelines, WP:NMOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG ?  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is the brother of Amaury Cordeel - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED .  - 2A01:36D:1200:4672:DDA5:4C08:B8B6:3AA7 ( talk ) 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline.  glman ( talk ) 20:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Funny enough it even comes from the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions .  The person in question does not appear to have any significant coverage.  Is anyone seeing any sources showing significant coverage?  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - nominator has not provided any guideline or reasoning for deletion.  glman ( talk ) 20:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree the nominator should provide a more clear explanation, it does not appear Ghislain Cordeel meets notability requirements.  Are you seeing otherwise?  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My only issue was that nobody has claimed that the subject is notable because of his brother - his brother was not even mentioned in the article.  My agenda was to improve nomination statements in general.  Geschichte ( talk ) 11:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Okay driver at best, that did well in some national series.  Some feeder series, no so, nothing top level.  No prejudice for a recreation in the future though if he has more significance in the future but I guess he'll be another run of the mill driver.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:12, 26 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
Philip Thorpe Priestley: Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly.  May pass WP:NAUTHOR .  scope_creep Talk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews.  I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:56, 14 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
International Studies Charter High School: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 15 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
PlayAlong: There's some coverage (e.g. this Adweek piece ), but everything substantive I've been able to find looks like a press release, with the exception of this one article from the Hollywood Reporter , which isn't enough on its own for WP:NCORP .  Rusalkii ( talk ) 06:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 06:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Games , Internet ,  and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unreferenced ad.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Cannot find sufficient significant coverage and certainly reads like an ad.  popo dameron ⁠ talk 13:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's a musical website that uses the name now.  Nothing for this "product" found.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 22 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
Makoma Mohale: Claggy ( talk ) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is no Reliable Sources in the article at all.  Untamed1910 ( talk ) 03:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:CSD by WP:G5 .  Claggy ( talk ) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] G5 wouldn't technically apply as they weren't blocked or banned before the article was created (it only applies to block evasion).  Also, as the nom you are already counted as having made an implicit bolded delete, though if you have a non-delete proposal (for example, speedy delete) you can do so, though usually you'd add it into the original nom comment.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've struck the duplicate vote.  I can't see why CSD G5 would apply here.  It would also help if you gave a better deletion rationale demonstrating BEFORE had been done before nominating this article.  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:49, 28 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