hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Mosaic Publishing: Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 15 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!  07:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - sources currently in the article are either an interview, or a few database entries for some of their products - none of which help establish notability.  I couldn't find any any additional sources either.  As is, fails the GNG.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 26 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
Werner Krieglstein: Likely a WP:VANITY page.  jps ( talk ) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy ,  and Psychology .  jps ( talk ) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic , Germany ,  and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - not widely cited in scholar, doesn't seem to meet any other requirements of WP:PROF - car chasm ( talk ) 02:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendental perspectivism ).  There are only a handful of citations to this person's scholarly work and nothing else that really goes toward satisfying PROF. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 00:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not voting since this is my father.  I've had my COI announced on the top of my user page for over a decade.  I haven't edited this page since 2015 and have no plans of violating COI and editing ever again.  Some citations in this article are in need of some wayback machine links.  I top-loaded the relevant WP:PROF citations in the lead since that is what I thought one did back then.  My work on this article was before I knew about Articles for Creation and that peer-review process for COI.  I have since used that process successfully.  D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 21:55, 29 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
Matt Dunnerstick: Was already deleted by a unanimous delete decision in 2011.  No theoretical objection to a redirect to his sole film, only a practical concern: this film's entry was also deleted in 2011 and was also recreated over our community decision two years later.  If Matt Dunnerstick is deleted again, please also salt.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and Film .  gidonb ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : could not locate any notable coverage.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No reference found in Google-- Hukumat Namanzoor ( talk ) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) <--Blocked for abusing multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devoter .  Aintabli ( talk ) 02:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with above.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:48, 11 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
Qingdao Derbies: Snowflake91 ( talk ) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football , Lists ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Buffie Carruth: There is no significant coverage in third party reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in details.  Current sources are unreliable, passing mentions, interviews etc. but non providing indepth coverage.  I tried to find sources as per WP:GNG but can't find any.  The subject fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG .  In2020 ( talk ) 06:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Health and fitness ,  and United States of America .  North America 1000 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non notable Actor/Modal.  Fails basic WP:GNG no in-depth coverage.  Person in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. --- FitIndia Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks indepth coverage ,fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:41, 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
Death of Bernadette Caroline: Fram ( talk ) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Education ,  and Indonesia .  Fram ( talk ) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a very sad personal story but seems to be of limited notability beyond the immediate WP:NOTNEWS and if there is anything else to report it seems WP:TOOSOON JMWt ( talk ) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Tragic, but WP:NOTNEWS .  No significant coverage.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 23:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Being ruled a suicide likely isn't notable; this doesn't appear to push the notability over the bar.  Individual had a rather routine life before this event, dying hasn't made them more notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:51, 30 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
Cesar Bernhardt: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject wasn't notable in 2007, isn't notable now.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 01:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , doesn't pass notability criteria.  Wizardman 12:53, 26 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
STEM in tennis: I originally moved it to draft space but no real improvements were made.  CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk) , Huliva 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and GNG.  CoconutOctopus talk 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per OR and NOTESSAY, sources about specific aspects cobbled together in one article despite no source about it as a whole.  Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 13:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article might be mergeable if there were any sources but as it stands it's not suitable.  Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:RS .  Feels like someone uploaded their school essay as an article.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Judging by the user's only two edits to other pages, which are reviews of other new users' drafts, and one their reviews at Talk:STEM in tennis , this is obviously a class assignment.  How can we stop this junk and teachers having newbies start their own new pages without going through AFC?  Reywas92 Talk 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a violation of WP:OR per the above.  Left guide ( talk ) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:DELREASON#14 : Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia .  This is plainly a WP:NOTESSAY violation.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:03, 1 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
Forecastfox (fix version): Was PROD'ed before (the reason: Not notable; I can find only passing mentions and spam. ), PROD was reverted with the summary: a quick search finds several .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet ,  and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Also unable to find reliable sources for notability.  Most results are just sites that reupload downloads or forum posts or brief mentions.  Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFT .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - [2] , [3] , and [4] are RS reviews, though two of them are in listicles, and it's likely that it would have had further reviews so it could be turned into a somewhat better article.  On the other hand, there's going to be a multitude of browser extensions with similarly marginal levels of coverage, the article is an orphan (despite having apparently once been de-orphaned), I can't see an obvious limited merge target, and even if there were further reviews there's not much that can be usefully said about it that an internet search wouldn't give.  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 03:43, 3 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
Discontinued OCTA bus routes: Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, this article is helpful to those who are wondering about old bus routes.  Without this page, you would have to attempt to procure a copy of an antique OCTA "bus book".  Extraordinary1.0 ( talk ) 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unsourced bus fancruft.  Wikipedia isn't a repository for every detail of a transport authority's historical service updates.  It appears a list of current OCTA bus routes , doesn't exist, well. .  at least after 2016.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ajf773, The OCTA has rebranded since October 2015 but not in 2016 actually.  It appears that the OC Bus is still remain under the name of OCTA as same don't get me wrong about that.  The OCTA has not been changed to OC but everyone has 2 options to say the OCTA or OC Bus.  Cool90630 ( talk ) 03:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom -No evidence of any notability, Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTGUIDE and to some extent WP:NOTDIR.  – Davey 2010 Talk 16:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTDIR, even an out of date or non-existent one...  SN54129 14:13, 12 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
Christopher R. Swanson: Page is lacking Notability and is often written like an advertisement/resume .  Essentially none of listed initiatives and events appear notable enough to justify a biographical page.  The only potentially notable exception being Sheriff Swanson's one-time participation in the George Floyd Protests, though even this seems to fall under Wikipedia:Notability (People)#People_notable_for_only_one_event and could most definitely be moved into the greater George Floyd Protests article if deemed important enough.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Police ,  and Michigan .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - sorry if this is a stupid question, but presumably US sheriffs are not automatically notable under NPOL?  Ingratis ( talk ) 05:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope, sheriffs and other county officials do not pass WP:NPOL .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks - I wanted to check, as I've seen it argued the other way.  Ingratis ( talk ) 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Also, in addition to what others have pointed out, see WP:NRV .  No one is inherently notable simply because of their position.  Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 23:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete no claim of notability beyond that imputed to his position, and US sheriffs are not (and should not) be assumed notable.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Failure of WP:GNG too, in addition to WP:NPOL , as Curbon7 pointed out.  GuardianH ( talk ) 16:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The NY Times is interesting, but it's one event.  Flint is a mid-sized city, not small, not not terribly large, so holding a positing for the city could be notable, but isn't with what we have.  Other than marching in the protest, there is nothing for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails NPOL, is just a local elected?  official, and is weirdly promotional.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per suspected COI / WP:BLP1E .  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  County sheriffs are not "inherently" notable, but the notability claim here essentially boils down to a WP:BLP1E rather than a substantive claim of permanent international significance.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:36, 14 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
Lorenzo Michelini: The best source I found was a transactional announcement .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Italy .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A couple of profiles also, but not really seeing enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:06, 11 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
List of most followed media on TV Time: Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet .  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If TV Time (which is pretty much a churnalism article in itself) wants to host its most popular show list, I suggest they do it on their own website.  Also its parent company Whip Media had its article posted pay-for-play on here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not apparently a notable list, as there are no sources other than TV Time itself that would indicate that any other reliable sources take an interest in which media are the most followed on TV Time.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Original research and WP:NOTIINFO .  No context as to what the increase/decrease columns actually relate to.  This is clearly a stats project for TVTime, not Wikipedia.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 02:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 02:56, 12 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
Mike Turner (Pollster): Edit.pdf ( talk ) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but he appears neither to be an academic nor to pass our academic notability criteria .  In particular, although one of those criteria is about fellows of major societies for which fellowship is a significant honor, neither of the things called "fellow" in the article meet that criterion; one just means he works at a think tank, and the other (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society) is "open to anyone with an interest in statistics and data science at any stage of their career" rather than reserved as an honor for the society's most distinguished members.  So that leaves only WP:GNG -based notability, but we only have passing mentions of him in our sources, rather than the in-depth coverage needed for GNG.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:46, 18 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
Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - non notable subject failing NLIST .  Might be a viable category however.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Doesn't really seem to be a coherent topic; sources, such as they are, talk about one or the other but not both together.  It's possible that the Regent's Scholarship by itself could be a notable topic, but I'm not seeing much evidence of it.  If there is anything of encyclopedic significance to be covered about that scholarship, it could probably be addressed in the Regents of the University of California article.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:37, 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