hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Italian Liberal Party (disambiguation): Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.  PROD declined by @ Soman : with edit summary "de-prod, revert to good version of article" but the version reverted to is improperly formatted for a disambiguation page with a primary topic.  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as one is the obvious primary topic.  OfTheUsername ( talk ) 22:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The hatnote seem suffice.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Nothing much to say.  Carpimaps talk to me!  13:23, 23 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
Queye: Don't think there is anything to redirect to and don't think there is anything to be merged.  Just i yaya 03:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Websites , Kazakhstan ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are! https://thesearchenginereviewblog.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/queye-the-kazakh-search-engine-is-proving-to-be-the-best-to-come-out-of-asia/ https://qel.ink/IHLs1D (in Russian) Technically, these don't count since they're tweets, but I'll leave them here anyways since they aren't made by Queye: https://x.com/JadenHeinzel/status/1709760104646557939? s=20 Icantthinkofaname22 ( talk ) 05:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These look a lot like WP:Blogs to me Just i yaya 10:14, 22 October 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!  04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why?  The article is fine.  Icantthinkofaname22 ( talk ) 06:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Icantthinkofaname22 How would the subject meet the inclusion criteria of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ?  Just i yaya 07:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails  ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 10:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails to show notability Flurrious ( talk ) 17:43, 29 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
Complejo Municipal: Seems unlikely that a stadium for a lower league team is notable but would be interested if anyone else can find sources that meet the GNG standard JMWt ( talk ) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador .  JMWt ( talk ) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge back to C.D. Juventud Independiente , which also needs a bit of work - the only thing that needs to be merged is the co-ordinates and capacity.  There is a chance this stadium is notable as a former top flight stadium, and there are some hits in local newspapers, but nothing clearly significant.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've copied the two pieces of information back to the club's article.  No need for a redirect.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , do not redirect, because of the ambiguous name.  Many teams play on a "municipal complex".  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per @ Geschichte .  The term "Complejo Municipal" is too broad to be redirected.  Svartner ( talk ) 08:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?  Is this title too ambiguous?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unreferenced TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk ) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete partially be cause of the ambiguity but also because I seriously doubt the coordinates are correct, as they do not point to a stadium, but to a playing field behind a school.  Without that, there really isn't anything to merge anyway.  Mangoe ( talk ) 22:33, 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
Could be the move: The best source seems to be the Penn State student blog already referenced, it's the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 06:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Like the nom. , I could not find any SIGCOV.  Looking at the sources placed on the page, the fourth is about the company that owns this and not the subject itself and the third is just instagram with a follower count (primary source).  Looking at the other two that address the subject, Pieczynsk (2024) is independent and addresses the subject with significant coverage, but the article is on the Penn State student blog.  This is not a reliable secondary source.  James (2022) has the same issue.  It's a blog and thus self published.  So we are left with nothing at all.  It is clear that this is a podcast that some people like.  At this point it lacks sigcov in reliable independent secondary sources.  It could be WP:TOOSOON but it is not notable as it stands.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Entertainment , Internet ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Recently created so don't want to close as soft-delete.  Relisting to establish a stronger consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this podcast sounds kind of funny and cool but there's no claim to notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:23, 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
Tom Lash: No GNG sources or anything close.  North8000 ( talk ) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this isn't even attempting to claim that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason besides an unsuccessful candidacy.  Bearcat ( talk ) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NPOL because the article is about “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.”  also from WP:NPOL “A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists” [1] which Lash has.  Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage.  So the existence of the merely expected campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "surpasses GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL" card — campaign coverage builds toward permanent notability only if it expands to such a deeply unexpected (much more nationalized than the norm, much more enduring than the norm, etc.) degree that his candidacy stands out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the thousands of other candidates who didn't get articles.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:51, 20 October 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!  23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NPOL as cited by

Discussion outcome: delete
Daniele Pantano: He is not sufficiently notable in any of those fields for Wikipedia inclusion.  As explained on the article's Talk page, he has not been the recipient of any literary prize, shortlisting or other distinction.  Critical commentary in independent secondary sources has amounted to just one newspaper review and one literary journal review of one poetry collection (published in 2010).  Other coverage has been in web interviews etc, or self-generated.  There is a strong suspicion that a major contributor to the article has been the subject himself, or someone closely associated with him.  Previous versions of the article have included exaggerated claims (e.g. about his academic qualifications) that other editors have tried to correct, often with the misleading information being reinstated.  The suspicion is that the article is being used as a tool of self-aggrandizement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosech ( talk • contribs ) 00:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Authors , Poetry , Switzerland , England ,  and Florida .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete* I see bread and butter translation work (not enough for a Wiki page, but almost nothing in terms of sustained, independent secondary analysis of output (such as reviews in publications entirely independent with their own established editorship).  Wiki had already rated this a Low Importance page.  Coverage of their work is extremely small and the talk page reports Cosech’s extensive efforts to find it.  The points about erroneous edits to qualifications by the proposer check out.  80.95.196.234 ( talk ) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a clearly self-promotional article about a non-notable translator, poet, and associate professor (not a full professor, not a PhD).  Does not rise to prominence or notability in any of those fields.  Article creator, through IPs and sockpuppets, has done nothing else on Wikipedia besides this plus an article on the main poet he has translated.  Persingo ( talk ) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To add to the above, this is probably an autobiography, as it was started by an anonymous account tracing to the same time and place that the subject was a student back in 2005 in Tampa.  128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth noting that the author of that initial 2005 article called Pantano "award winning", though I have found no record of Pantano winning any award either before or since.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that the article has been a 20 year vanity project by the author himself, and has only escaped scrutiny for so long because he is so little known.  Cosech ( talk ) 18:14, 25 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
Hermosillo (construction company): Aronitz ( talk ) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete References could arise in the future, but as it stands now, it seems unlikely that they would appear and bring this article above notability thresholds.  Royal Autumn Crest ( talk ) 12:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lacks any notability whatsoever.  Possibly promotional.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 24 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
Top YouTube Channel Subscribers in Mainland China: Lists of things by current popularity status are not the kind of content Wikipedia should be curating, as a rule, because it's subject to frequent change and thus not easily maintainable for accuracy -- and that goes double for when the content isn't even supported by any legitimate reliable sources to properly verify that the information is even accurate in the first place.  Bearcat ( talk ) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China .  Bearcat ( talk ) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete This is a list of useless information.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a great example of an inappropriate cross-categorization.  Clearly fails WP:LISTN .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete YouTube's been blocked in China since 2009, so these numbers are absolutely useless without any mainland numbers to speak of.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since 2009 YouTube has been inaccessible from mainland China.  However, YouTube can still be accessed from Hong Kong, Macau, the Shanghai Free-Trade Zone, specific hotels, and by using a VPN.  Even though YouTube is blocked under the Great Firewall , many Chinese media outlets, including China Central Television (CCTV) , have official YouTube accounts.  In spite of the ban, Alexa ranks YouTube as the 5th-most-visited website in China. ( Wikipedia: YouTube Censorship In China )  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Whatever the case, the numbers are unofficial and 100% unverifiable (why would we account for numbers from business travelers at hotels?)).  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Um, they block youtube, so the subscriber numbers should all read zero.  This is HOAX.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete G3.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This information is false considering that YouTube is blocked in China, and would not be that useful even if it wasn't.  History person 2 ( talk ) 16:50, 1 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
Marko Farion: Online searches, including through JSTOR and newspaper archives, turn up no WP:SIGCOV .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Medicine ,  and Ukraine .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Zero coverage for this fellow, even what's used now isn't really enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and Ohio .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks in-depth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:55, 23 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
Nayelis López: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Dominican Republic .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and the three references are a PDF of a player list, a stat site, and a full replay of the game on YouTube.  Yeah, it's that bad.  After a quick search, I found some more stat sites, but nothing outside of that.  IncompA 03:53, 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) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 21:13, 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
ATunes: The Quigley source in the existing article isn't reliable, nor are any other sources I could find online.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The first AfD contains some sources that could establish notability.  Two of the links are rotted and I couldn't find any archive of them.  The other two are fairly short reviews, no more than a couple of paragraphs.  I'm leaning slightly in favor of delete because I don't think this coverage is clearly extensive, but if there is consensus otherwise, I can understand that.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 9 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!  19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : A download page with a description is probably not significant coverage.  The article is mostly a list of features, I would keep as an entry on Comparison of free software for audio .  IgelRM ( talk ) 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per IgelRM .  popo dameron ⁠ talk 00:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The scope of the Comparison of free software for audio list is "notable free and open source software".  Since this software is not notable, the article should be deleted and the entry removed.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:55, 31 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
Scuderia Chiarelli: Searches did not turn up enough other than routine sports coverage.   Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  Onel 5969 TT me 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NCORP says that the sources for organizations needs to have higher standards then for the average article.  Currently the sources do not even meet the looser standards.  Adler3 ( talk ) 15:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : WP:NCORP doesn't have enough citations to find.  Best sources are nothing to go.  CastJared ( talk ) 17:18, 27 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
Salimata Ndiaye: All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1 and 2 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Senegal .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:03, 13 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