hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
St David's School, Purley: The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding.  I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No notability whatsoever.  Cannot find anything else either.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:18, 19 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
Sports broadcasting contracts in Finland: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Finland .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unnecessary list.  Shankargb ( talk ) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shankargb : Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:09, 15 April 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!  08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NLIST , WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  No coverage as a set in RS.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:05, 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
Safetica: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:40, 23 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
Wolf Frameworks: Sources are trivial or non-independent.  Ineligible for PROD.  – Tera tix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software ,  and India .  – Tera tix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete short-lived startup with no notability.  Broc ( talk ) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Article, and product, doesn't seem to be notable enough.  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 06:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Karnataka .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet WP:NCORP , overly promotional article, also the company appears to be defunct as well.  Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Page for promotional purpose.  Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP .  No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:45, 26 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
Eva Fasel: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Europe .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 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
Lakeesha Rarere: Only primary sources provided and a highest ranking of 75.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I searched online to find any RS but I failed.  With no achievements and no RS, this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:21, 26 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
Tut-e Lashkaran: Abadi are not notable.  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 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!  01:11, 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
Eternal Decision: XabqEfdg ( talk ) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Oklahoma .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I see plenty of non-RS, looks like they last put anything out in 2005, and their albums are still available via eBay.  Not my area of expertise, but I suspect this might be saveable if someone can find reviews.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that their first album was released in 16 countries to considerable acclaim.  Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I dug for sources and did not find any reliable ones.  I unfortunately think an Allmusic bio is not enough when not coupled with reviews.  According to this page , there exists one review in HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal Magazine), but that's a bit thin as well.  Scene-wise, the lack of coverage is not unexpected either, seeing as thrash metal was long out of favour when this band started releasing.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:49, 23 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 ) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Gechichte.  I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability.  Fails WP:NBAND Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject.  Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 19:57, 30 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
Huddard High School: Only a primary source provided.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Tried to find in Google Book search, but found a few mentions only.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 14 June 2023 (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 00:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only sources that I could find are either primary OR school databases.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unable to find WP:SIGCOV in Google Books or Google News.  A promising looking book, Education in Kanpur , states in the "about this edition" section "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online."  One possible redirect target, List of schools in India , appears to only accept created articles.  Another possible redirect target, List of educational institutions in Kanpur , only accepts colleges.  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 11:29, 21 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
Dom Aleixo (disambiguation): Even the hatnote atop the primary topic, Dom Aleixo , points to the subsidiary topic, not to the dab page.  — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 12:03, 19 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
Leigh Rogers: No senior level competition at all.  Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and England .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:NSKATE Claire 26 ( talk ) 16:28, 19 May 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!  16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:49, 30 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
Aboli: Recreated by likely SOCK after prior deletion discussion.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Previously deleted at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NTV .  There is no notability here.  Source like News18 are reliable but has no indepth coverage on the series and the series did not garner significant media coverage.  This TV series does not satisfy the notability guidelines.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Fails WP:GNG , WP:NTV .  Sources cited do not establish notability.  This deleted article should not have been recreated, not like this.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:42, 18 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
Elizabeth J. Drake: Let'srun ( talk ) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete seems to meet BLP1E.  — siro χ o 01:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete & Merge content per below proposal As the article creator, delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E .  Safiel ( talk ) 01:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative proposal : Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations .  We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns.  BD2412 T 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed.  As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a redirect as well.  — siro χ o 19:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So hold on, now we're listing expired nominations in a judicial controversy article?  Why?  What about Drake is/was controversial?  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 17:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You raise a fair point.  I withdraw that proposal for this article.  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, there was another discussion started about changing the titles of that series of articles Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What "controversies"?  to better reflect their content and intent.  — siro χ o 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be good with this proposal.  Safiel ( talk ) 21:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting in the midst of proposals and counter proposals as consensus is far from clear and each AFD in this subject area is being closed differently.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per nom.  Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only a nominee but not an actual judge.  LibStar ( talk ) 07:29, 27 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
EnergyCS: The only dedicated coverage this company ever received by reliable sources was about its 2011 acquisition by the now-defunct Coda Automotive .  (NCORP specifically mentions acquisitions an example of trivial coverage ).  Other than that, the company received only passing mentions by news articles about the electric vehicle industry in the 2000s.  Tserton ( talk ) 19:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology .  Tserton ( talk ) 19:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Promotional with no evidences of notability.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 09:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with what's already been written.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:17, 2 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
Pits (card game): It was created in 2005, but still cites no WP:RS .  The only reference is to the webpage of the original article creator, Stephen George Bailey.  It is not listed in any major sources like Parlett or McLeod ( pagat.com ) and the only online references cite the same web page by Bailey.  Unless WP:RS can be found it should be deleted.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , couldn't find any reliable sources online.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Boardgame Geek and the like, nothing found in RS.  Lots of instructions on how to play, nothing we can use for wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:29, 24 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
Fittr (app): Fails WP:NCORP .  US-Verified ( talk ) 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Financial express article is an ok source.  This is an article in the Deccan Chronicle [4] , not extensive, but is in a RS, and doesn't mention funding.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source #9, the rest aren't helpful for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b Deccan Chronicle is a press release-type article without any proper byline.  It is not what we call significant coverage.  Financial Express is a trade publication.  We need more than routine coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH .  US-Verified ( talk ) 02:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b just did some searching and that exact same article also appears on unrelated websites such as [ the "Brand Equity" section of the India Time ] and was published the day before on the "Marketing" section of the e4M (a marketing company) website.  HighKing ++ 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Companies ,  and Maharashtra .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS .  Looked at the first 11 references.  Its all clickbait and branding information to get the thing out there.  Very poor quality sourcing.  scope_creep Talk 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Deccan Chronicle chronicle above is a business name report from the business.  It doesn't prove its notable.  Its fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  scope_creep Talk 09:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria applies.  THe references are all PR and marketing.  HighKing ++ 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the explanation above, I can't find any sourcing we can use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:25, 27 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
Justin Michel: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Netherlands ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 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