hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Kumar Gaurav (entrepreneur): I've removed blogs, deprecated crypto websites, and sites like 'The Org,' which are often paid databases and have nothing to do with reliable sources.  The remaining sources have been thoroughly revised, and I didn't find none really reliable one with a focus on the person.  Many paragraphs in the article give undue weight and should be removed.  It's quite clear, the page is promotional with no reliable sources  with some sources masquerading as reliable or as related to the person.  Dirubii Olchoglu ( talk ) 11:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Cryptocurrency , Computing , Bihar ,  and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the author of the page I can agree on some sentences.  And I even removed unsourced content after you removed a few references.  You know, it's hard to write the page from scratch so now it looks like WP:ONEEVENT , because this person was involved as a CEO of the company which was hacked in 2020.  Probably page can be moved to draft to further improvement, where you can help to find more third-party significant coverage reliable sources.  I appreciate you.  Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk ) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the non-existant (yet) Cashaa article.  All sourcing is about the platform, not about this person.  Or he's talking about the platform.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway it will be WP:ONEEVENT so better to leave it to the draft and wait till someone else show interest to the subject if another one event with reliable sources show up.  Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk ) 13:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll let someone else assess whether there have been sufficient edits by uninvolved editors to preclude G5, but the creator has been blocked as a sock.  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone Star Mississippi 17:28, 22 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
Rudransh Mathur: Pepper Beast (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Pepper Beast (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very few hits on this person's film works, and not really much of anything found in RS, or in anything.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom does not meet GNG.  Tame Rhino ( talk ) 13:45, 19 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
Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon: While we can have glossaries on Wikipedia, this one doesn't provide anything but quotes rather than actual secondary analysis of the terms used, and doesn't necessarily need a spinoff article.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 12:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 12:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N - if the definitions of the terms used by this author were the subject of scholarly discussion with WP:SIGCOV , then I could see having an article on that.  But his *own* definitions of his own terms doesn't seem like a notable topic for an article.  Psychastes ( talk ) 20:51, 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
Jesse August: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:11, 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
Julius Brewster Cotton: UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I took a stab but was unable to establish clear notability and forgot to come back to it.  I'll have another look this week to see if anything has changed.  Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you had the chance?  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't turned up anything of note.  If this closes as delete and I do down the road, I'll draftify it and flag for you and whoever closes before restoring.  Star Mississippi 01:53, 13 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!  20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Trivial coverage, at best.  Not notable and I can't find any sourcing.  Props for the "what can I do with this degree article" as sourcing though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 13 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
Michel Noyan: A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV .  The article fails WP:GNG .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search.  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:56, 14 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
Dirty District: TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - band is nowhere near notable enough, article has no sources and 2/3 external links are dead.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not mean to steer discussion away from this AfD's article, but I wanted to note that I took the liberty of nominating the albums in the band's discography for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Gangsters from the Dirty District .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 22:08, 20 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
John Fricker: The article has been tagged for notability since 2019.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 11:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Theatre ,  and United Kingdom .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 11:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not seeing any coverage other than an interview here .  Hkkingg ( talk ) 23:30, 10 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
Lead Heads: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify per WP:NFF , WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 14:52, 13 July 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 July 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify, not notable and the film is stuck in development, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or delete.   The Variety source on casting looks usable and it will probably be notable if released, but we need much better sourcing to write an article at this stage in production.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:46, 22 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
Todd Archibald: I am bringing this to the community's attention.   I am personally a weak delete : somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators ,  and Canada .  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him , but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject.  Bearcat ( talk ) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   mostly primary sources.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (Procedural) -- concensus can change, but not likely within 6 months.  There were good keep arguments before and good delete arguments then too.  But let's not go through the whole process again so soon. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only plausible argument for keeping (ultimately not successful) in the previous AfD was per WP:AUTHOR , as an author of legal textbooks.  But nobody making that argument linked to any published reviews and I couldn't find any.  The current version doesn't even mention the books.  The previous deleted version also noted that he was the editor-in-chief of Advocates Quarterly , but to make a case for WP:PROF#C8 we would need to argue that it is a major journal and we don't even have an article about it.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per arguements at the last AFD Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 01:32, 3 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
Patrick Gohé: I am unable to find sufficient coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France ,  and Oceania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 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
Keemokazi: Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Lists of people , Entertainment , Syria ,  and United States of America .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Video games , Internet ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 10 July 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!  07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not meet the general notability criteria ( WP:GNG ).  The only sources I could find were interviews and press releases, which do not confer any notability.  ArcticSeeress ( talk ) 12:37, 17 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
Robert Paddock: Promo UPE linkedin muck.  scope_creep Talk 12:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The nominator uses some colourful language to characterise this article's nature, but it is essentially what we have here.  Sourcing is problematic, notability is by no means evident.  Gentleman exited a startup.  They do it every day.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - this is fluff.  Promotionally-toned article from an editor who writes a lot of promotionally-toned articles - David Gerard ( talk ) 16:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable business person, lack of any sort of RS coverage [18] is typical.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:52, 14 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
Gtech Mulearn: BoraVoro ( talk ) 17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education , Technology ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 10 November 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!  08:35, 17 November 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!  07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  None of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Gtech Mulearn: they are just promotional announcements of product launches.  Also this reference & this one are so similar, with substantial amounts of word-for word identical text and the rest closely paraphrased versions of essentially the same text, that there is no room for any doubt that they are two write-ups of the same press release, and likewise so are this one & this one .  This one is full of language such as "... engage the talents in programming, product design, and product making, with the potential to build technology products that can tap the global market...":  just blatant marketing material, not independent coverage.  In summary, not a single one of the cited references is either substantial coverage of the subject or an independent source, let alone both of those, as needed to establish notability.  JBW ( talk ) 22:12, 25 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
Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series: We have articles on cricket umpiring, seriously?  I dont believe this should exist on Wikipedia, and I also am against a merge because all that really needs to happen is a mention of this on the respective tour pages Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason: Umpiring in the 1958–59 Ashes series ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Umpiring in the 1970–71 Ashes series ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Umpiring in the 1974–75 Ashes series ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , England ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What policy-based reasons are there for deletion?  There certainly seem to be enough independent sources to meet GNG.  Nigel Ish ( talk ) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We'd delete an article about the Umpiring of Angel Hernandez because that simply isn't grounds for a good article outside 'he's terrible and here's why', which is what this series of articles is equivalent to.  Yeah, it's packed with sources, but this isn't a proper article style at all (they read more like a retrospective episode of First Take ) and belongs on a cricket-focused wiki, certainly not here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unnecessary WP:CFORKs that are mostly POV controversy articles, so nothing worth merging into main articles.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Pharaoh496, Nate and Joseph2302 sum up my feelings about such articles completely.  RobinCarmody ( talk ) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All incidences of controversial umpiring are covered in the main article, making these unnecessary WP:CFORKs .  AA ( talk ) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:NOPAGE .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 12:43, 16 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
Mask Bloc: This is too soon for this to be an article,  and borderline promotional of the advocacy group.  Jeff UK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and COVID-19 .  Jeff UK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a group its more like an organizing tactic similar to Black Blocs and I don't see how its too soon as the covid pandemic is an ongoing situation and had an article as soon as it was named.  The article is important information for an ongoing pandemic I don't see why it would be deleted.  Wikibobdobbs ( talk ) 06:47, 9 April 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!  06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly disagree with the suggestion of removing this article, and I'm confused as to how it can be justified, given that the movement is very much an active (and growing) one.   I'm currently beginning research on this specific form of mutual aid as part of my postgraduate dissertation, and while the article needs to be cleaned up for consistent formatting, etc., there is no reason (other than a "political" objection to masking) to remove this at present, even if the information is under-reported.   This is " grey literature ," essentially.  MAINShorebird ( talk ) 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Cited sources are all passing mentions and I couldn't find anything on Google that was reliable and featured sustained coverage.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , This was already deleted by the time I made this reply.  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:26, 8 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