hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dou Kalender : It wasn't very big, but I made it even smaller as it is unsourced.  Originally, the only source was the band's website, but that no longer exists (I've removed it).  It's an orphan.  The image is on no other language project, including the Turkish one.  Although it was created over 10 years ago, only one person has it on their watchlist.  That said, I know nothing about band singers, especially foreign ones and have not done WP:BEFORE .  If editors think it should be kept, this AfD will hopefully serve to improve the facial notability of the subject and the quality of the article itself.  Fails WP:SINGER .  Bbb23 ( talk ) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey .  Kpg jhp jm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I won't spend as much time rewriting my comment, because the WP:XFDVOTE tool did not save my comment.  Simply put, I couldn't find reliable independent sources on him.  There is possible COI as the creator's sole contribution was this biography for more than a decade.  The band could be luckier in terms of notability, but it interestingly lacks an article, and after a quick search, I am unsure if there is sufficient coverage out there.  I would, however, support redirecting this to an article about the band if it ever gets created during this discussion.  Aintabli ( talk ) 21:33, 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
K. S. Narayan Reddy : I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF .  However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V .  Daask ( talk ) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators .  Daask ( talk ) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @ Kazamzam , Necrothesp , Rajasekhar1961 ,  and Varunmodgil : Daask ( talk ) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (see below) -- multiple sources attest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories.  Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find any sources to attest to being the winner of the Dr. B.C. Roy Award in 1986 as claimed in the article and per the Dr. B. C. Roy Award page itself, the 1986 award went to Jagjit Singh Chopra with a citation.  The other claims and sources mentioned above are not included in the article as of this writing, a basic Google search of the name does not return any mention of said awards besides the textbooks, and the sources that are there are primary and the tone overall does not seem neutral.  I think it's possible that this could be noteworthy and meet NPROF but at the moment it does not.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh , Telangana ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 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!  22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Changed !vote from above. Kazamzam convinced me to look harder at the B.C. Roy Award claim again (the website was down the first time I looked) and indeed I cannot source it outside of claims from the author.  (Thanks Kazamzam!)  With that gone, I don't see sufficient notability.  Since I was the only "Keep" vote, I think Wcquidditch can end the relist and close as delete.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 17 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
Dinhing Dapita Sadya : Aspects ( talk ) 14:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per reasons provided by nom.  Llajwa ( talk ) 13:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:09, 3 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
Margherita d'Este : Sourced entirely to one online genealogical self-published website.  DrKay ( talk ) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy .  DrKay ( talk ) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At least there are sources.  Some pages have no sources so I don’t understand why you’d put it up for deletion.  YorkDr ( talk ) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some pages have no sources See WP:OTHERSTUFF .  Having other problematic pages is not a valid reason to keep another one that has issues of its own.  Each article is evaluated based on its own merit.  Also, lack of sources in an article is not necessarily equal to lack of notability, if one can demonstrate that significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources does exist.  This is what you should be doing with regards to this page.  Keivan.f Talk 14:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - Sorry!  I have tried to find details about her life both offline and online; however, I couldn't find any information.  Nevertheless, if kept, Italian editors interested in history may come across sources.  Therefore, I leave it for them.  1.47.128.24 ( talk ) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers.  People in her position were public figures.  The sourcing may not be great, but is enough to know she existed.  Deletion serves no useful purpose.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO.  Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance.  The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial.  // Timothy :: talk 15:59, 21 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
Christopher Stoll : Except for a couple promotional articles, it largely is supported by primary sources from sites like Kickstarter, Etsy, and DeviantArt.  Additionally, the article was originally created by a user who appears to be the subject.  I do not believe the article meets notability requirements for encyclopedic inclusion and does not meet quality standards.  Indefensible ( talk ) 23:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on the borderline WP:GNG .  Note that I found an additional source as part of my own WP:BEFORE included at bottom of table below.  Does not meet WP:NARTIST .  Article would certainly require some cleanup.  I don't see confirmation that there is COI, and there's some "negative" information about kickstarter campaigns in the article as well.  In fact, the negative info itself is an issue given the lack of verifiability.  It's just not a great article as it stands.  Leaving out the clearly non-independent sources, we have: Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  "Buzzfeed Princess Avengers".  BuzzFeed.  presents artist work as if in an independent gallery ~ Buzzfeed (not news) ~ Several pieces of art present as primary focus ~ Partial "Huffington Post Princess Avengers".  HuffPost.  (two versions cited separately) hat-tip to buzzfeed and no author attributed, but seems independent HuffPo non-politics ~ presents similar art as buzzfeed, with some words about it ~ Partial "Babble Butt Kicking Superheroes".  large part interview in captions By Denver Post columnist moonlighting on babble ✘ No "Comedy Central Article on Stoll's Pokénatomy work".  ~ Comedy Central contract writer ~ Gallery of different work ~ Partial book not yet sourced in article university press ~ again covers only the art, but discussion is much more in-depth ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Look at the profile history of the article creator, I am pretty sure that is COI.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would believe it, but it could be a mistake so I just don't know for sure.  Would not really affect my ! vote either way.  — siro χ o 03:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All that I can find on Google are the Pokemon works, and the articles aren't focused on him .  I don't see WP:SIGCOV .  SWinxy ( talk ) 15:04, 3 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
AIPCC Energy (Edo Refinery) : LusikSnusik ( talk ) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy .  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable, lack of notable sources.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Edo refineries (there are two).  I don't find that AIPCC is notable, but the refineries are.  There's a fair amount of information about it, (some of which doesn't mention AIPCC) and the refineries are a big issue in Edo state.  [1] Larataguera ( talk ) 22:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 04:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 20:56, 6 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
Ismaila Salami Olasunkanmi : Nothing from BEFORE to establish notability.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  His best claim appears to be that he's dean of his college, which per criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC isn't enough. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  With h-index of just 15 on Google Scholar, it wouldn't be considered to meet the criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As mentioned above, weak publication record, no major awards and being a Dean is not notable by itself.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 03:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG , per norm.  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 10:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Bounds of education but lacking verifiability.  Like nom, doesn't meet WP: ACADEMIC or GNG.   All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not satisfy WP:NPROF .  Qflib ( talk ) 02:24, 2 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
Stoyan Todorov : In addition, no non-trivial sources are provided, and I could not find any.  Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Bulgaria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - found nothing better than Gong 1 and Gong 2 Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:21, 28 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
Princess María de la Esperanza of Bourbon-Two Sicilies : All the details are purely genealogical.  I bring it for community evaluation.  Sturm ( talk ) 04:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and Spain .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia isn't a family tree repository.  The alleged noteworthiness stems from marrying a "prince" who was born over 20 years after monarchy was abolished in Brazil.  This is part of a cross-wiki spam promoted by the current (alleged) heirs to the Brazilian throne who are trying to forge notability for themselves.  No notability as per WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE .  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 12:58, 31 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
Jerod Morris : Some coverage exists for a controversy involving Raúl Ibañez but that is WP:BIO1E at best.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indiana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning toward Delete , but does two pages of this book equal "sustained coverage"?  (p. 66-67).  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Maybe that blog is more notable but not sure.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 18:40, 14 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
Seb Sargent : Mike1901 ( talk ) 12:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Transportation ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The Independent article looks to be the best, until you open it and see it's about another person doing imitations of this fellow.  BBC is the individual appearing in an ad with the transport secretary for the nation, fine, but nothing for GNG.  Rest are cast lists and non-RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this.  I understand the accessible toilets controversy and that being a big part of the article, but the rest is just a very thin resume of this person's accomplishments and professional potential.  Doesn't make for a worthwhile article.  Bl00velvet ( talk ) 06:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No notability, and sources are either mentions or primary (and the New York Post).  The disabled incident is unfortunately a regular occurrence worldwide and doesn't make him any more special because of his "fame" from making train announcements.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 06:40, 17 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
Yelena Cardeso : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  The two references are stat sites, nothing special, and like the nomination, I was unable to find any sufficient coverage.  But I did find...  A THIRD STAT SITE!  YIPPEE!  IncompA 03:48, 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) 20:48, 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
CounterStrike Table Tennis : Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , the references look reliable enough, (i.e. Indianapolis Business Journal which appears to be reliable and is independent from the subject), and I feel it has enough references, however I would like to see some more added to the article.  Performing a WP:BEFORE search shows multiple results.  I recommend you use the find sources tool (

Discussion outcome: delete
Cierra Kaler-Jones : Let'srun ( talk ) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and New Jersey .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Naoto Ishikawa : The best coverage found in Japanese was Goo , a blog post that mentions him in a list of players being released and confirms his date of birth, height, weight and position (so nothing more than a database entry, really) and Targma , which contains a couple of trivial mentions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not significant enough.  Fulmard ( talk ) 03:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per above.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:35, 15 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