hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Sergey Skabelkin : Many facts are just there with completely zero sources 鲁纳娄于 ( talk ) 09:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Cryptocurrency , Finance , Russia ,  and Ukraine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 20 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!  06:35, 27 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
Mega Man Retro Roto Action Figures : Someone has attempted to speedy delete it before, so to my knowledge, it's ineligible for PROD.  QuietCicada - Talk 16:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Toys .  QuietCicada - Talk 16:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Plainly fails notability for a WP:PRODUCT .  No reliable sources.  Haven't done a WP:BEFORE but if the article can only point to WP:USERG like fans and collectors, it's not really within the scope of an independent article.  Not sure you'd merge this to Mega Man beyond maybe a sentence in the In Other Media section.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Sphere3 : Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination.  IncompA 18:22, 10 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
Lisa Daniels (TV presenter) : — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Journalism ,  and Television .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Appears to have won a local Emmy, which isn't notable for wiki.  Other sources are simply confirmation of employment, which is about all I can find as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 14 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
Asset revesting : I am unable to find any reliable sources using the term, much less anything meeting the other three criteria.  I'm not quite sure the tone is G11, so here we are.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While there seems to be room for there to be an article on the concept of active investing & reversting, I'm not sure this exact phrase meets notability, and there are numerous problems as above.  Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:11, 20 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
Jeanette Ashe : The current sourcing is totally inadequate, and I couldn't find any better.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , Science ,  and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find stories about her political run, nothing making her notable.  This appears PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- definitely not enough for WP:PROF and the second-ranked candidate in an election with 10,000 voters isn't usually notable on her own for that feat.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:07, 16 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
Centralised decentralised finance : Specifically, they seem to be all sources within or closely related to the cryptocurrencies community.  I would suggest maybe adding a few sentences to decentralised finance since it's quite closely related and redirecting there.  (Also, does anyone else find it weird that centralized finance redirects to central bank ?)  Other suggestions welcome.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like a potential WP:BLAR candidate.  Remsense 诉 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hye, i did add the problems of the DeFi (Decentralised Finance), the reason i didn't add more about DeFi is because there's already a page about it so i've added a redirect, as for the Centralized Finance, i could remove that redirect but Centralized Finance does mean finance with a central authority which would be a central bank in this case.  As for the source, it's not a very popular topic so you wouldn't see many articles from the Reliable Sources , i still did some digging and managed to find some reliable sources that other pages also use.  PikaBoo ( talk ) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally, if there aren't enough sources that meet the criteria, we would not be able to have a separate page for it but we could potentially have a short section mentioning it on a closely related concept, say, the decentralised finance page mentioning the differences.  Also, "centralised finance" is pretty crypto-jargon-y, I don't really think it's used much outside of the context of crypto, and someone clicking on the link may be a little surprised ( WP:RASTONISH ) especially since the Central bank page does not explain what that term has to do with it (and probably shouldn't).  Then again, this is AfD not RfD, I'll probably have to raise that one with them later.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:18, 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!  21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete As far as I am concerned, the absolute lack of any GBook hits means this is something that, at best is still in the something someone is still making up stage.  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:43, 11 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
Peoria Academy : Not notable by our standards (and a likely COI creation, and formerly a puff piece).  Drmies ( talk ) 00:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found no WP:SIGCOV .  Jacona ( talk ) 12:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Illinois .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the only reliable source currently on the article is NCES, and it's not independent.  BEFORE shows  nothing.  That's to be expected as this is a very small, non diploma granting institution.  NOTDIR applies.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 22:49, 21 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
Julio Salas : Joeykai ( talk ) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Khoubai : There is nothing special about being an award-winning content creator on YouTube!  There are hundreds, even thousands like him!  Do they all deserve an article?  Of course not!  The article is purely promotional about the person.  — Osama Eid ( talk ) 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  — Osama Eid ( talk ) 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Internet ,  and Algeria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
KBNI-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not have the sources to meet the WP:GNG and I don't see any ATD for this one either.  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:45, 6 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
Theory of encryption of power : This looks like a shameless promotion ("TEP has been developed mainly by the Colombian legal and political philosopher Ricardo Sanín-Restrepo").  Even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT 'ing without Sanin-Restrepo's input is a better idea.  Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX .  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The text reads as near gibberish to me, perhaps a LLM (like ChatGPT) has generated it?   Regardless, the prose is close to unintelligible to me and is not encyclopedic.   If there is an actual underlying topic of value to Wikipedia, it is not evident to me.   — Q uantling ( talk | contribs ) 21:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I just got done cleaning up a bunch of the COI editor's pushing of this concept at numerous high profile articles, including People and Constitution .  I'm not able to find sources that cover this topic where the authors don't either include Sanin-Restrepo directly or relate to him in some way.  There certainly are not enough independent sources to meet WP:GNG .  - MrOllie ( talk ) 21:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: editor is indef-blocked.  No one has time for this.  Drmies ( talk ) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I've heard of the concept of decentralization of power using encryption before, but never this Sanin-Restrepo person.  I suspect if this topic could have a wikipedia article written on it at some point in the future it might very well have a different title and likely would not include any of this current article's content.  - car chasm ( talk ) 06:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV -- Shrike ( talk ) 15:14, 25 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
Nick Smith (milliner) : As the hat from May 2022 says, the content reads like an advertisement and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - He has some businesses and won a minor award.  So have lots of people.  Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTPROMOTION .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:20, 13 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
Bungee ball : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability .  Article is largely unsourced claims.  From the 2 sources provided in the article, I can only establish that  1) some mall kiosks sold "bungee balls" in high volume and  2) a particular brand called "Yo-yo water balls" were (strangely) flammable.  I did a few quick Google searches for bungee balls and bungee ball toys, yielding only results for dog toys or tarpaulin tie downs.  Dfadden ( talk ) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG, simply no sources.  Fad toys need really clear and reliable sources to prove they are an encyclopedic topic adn this one fails completely.  // Timothy :: talk 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bouncy ball as the bungee ball product is probably not notable enough for an article, but there's already a collection of similar products building up under "Bouncy ball", and maybe the safety concerns make it an interesting historical relic.  It's not accurate to say there are no sources for it when there's a newspaper article about the product cited in the article.  An additional citation about a bungee ball product was deleted by the editor above me and has been restored.  -- Iritscen ( talk ) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH - not all fads are notable, if they are local and within a certain following.  If they are really notable, they can have an article like Pet rock .  Not against a redirect.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  23:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:42, 23 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
Vitaliy Farasyeyenko : Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 16:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Ukraine .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : this entry may be of local interest, and the minimal amount of information it contains appears to be supported by reliable sources.  However, it does not meet GNG or an SNG in their present state.  Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 ( talk ) 18:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article does not pass WP:GNG .  I have not been able to find any secondary reliable sources which have any significant coverage on the player.  Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 14:09, 17 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
Indian Cost Accounts Service : Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage.   Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 12:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations ,  and India .  North America 1000 13:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, please see the pdf file published by Ministry of Finance, Government of India on this link https://cac.gov.in/PDF%20Material/Brochure.pdf which may serve as a reliable in depth reference.  News references will be available in the form of recruitment to Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS) or transfer/postings of officers(Ex. https://www.indianbureaucracy.com/kanav-dua-icoas-transferred-to-office-of-chief-adviser-cost/ ).  ICoAS is a Central Civil Service under the Indian Government.  Similar articles pertaining to other Central Civil Services under the Government of India is available on Wikipedia (Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Audit_and_Accounts_Service , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Accounts_Service etc.).  As such, the article may be retained.  117.202.199.96 ( talk ) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and ORG.  Sources in article are primary, BEFORE showed no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 27 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
Yusuf Khel : I can say that I concur with the PROD rationale; I also found no non-Raj era sources.  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan .  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 11:37, 30 September 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 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments: The person who proposed the article’s deletion has, in fact, “targeted” a number of poorly sourced articles about Pashtun tribes.  That doesn’t mean they’re wrong.  For more information on the person who removed the PROD tag, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/McKhan/Archive — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft - I think the fairest thing to do here is to draftify.  I see whispers in sources that it is a verifiable thing, but these tend to be mentions.  It may well be a thing discussed in depth in Pashtun sources.  I can't find them and unless someone else offers them, I'm not sure any of the rest of us are in a position to assess them.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should not be draftifying articles that are over five years old.  We also cannot simply assume that in-depth sourcing exists - we don't need the actual sources, but we need proof of their existence.  Otherwise we would be forced to keep anything with potential for non-English sourcing, no matter how little actual indication there is of it.  ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no refs found for Yusuf Khel as a tribe or caste.  Multiple passing mentions for villages with this name in Afghanistan and Pakistan: [86] , [87] , [88] , [89] We could potentially edit this stub into a geographic stub with the same name but that seems a potentially confusing thing to do during an AfD - better to first delete this and then start one or two new stubs later if desired -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:26, 21 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