hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Betrayer (band): @T.C.G. [talk] 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nomination, I never heard that this band had record of having a single or album on national music chart, let alone receiving national or international awards.  In general, the band does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:BAND .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : For reasons given in nomination and because no notability evident in article.  InDimensional ( talk ) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Nigel Pennick: Lack of valid sources.  Fails WP:AUTHOR .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 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
Ilgın (given name): This name has no WP:SIGCOV and no Wikipedia articles about people with the name, so therefore fails WP:NNAME .  I can't seem to find any reliable sources establishing notability, either.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 09:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , namecruft which fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  No people named Ilgın in Wikipedia today, although that could change.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Useful and referenced.  Articles should be expanded and improved rather than deleted.  There's no good reason to delete.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Referenced means nothing if the sources don't demonstrate notability, and useful is an arbitrary description.  No good reason to delete?  How about not meeting basic guidelines?!  What if it can't be expanded or improved significantly?  Everything you've parroted on all these discussions goes against WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  Do you think anything is worthy of deletion?  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I apologize if I am short with some people.  This is not a personal attack and I am assuming good faith.  But still.  It's like a copy-and-paste response on everything without bothering to look for sources or improvement.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  There is barely any coverage of this name and not a single Wikipedia article about a person with this first name.  The lack of an entry for this Turkish first name on the Turkish Wikipedia is also a pretty good indication of this.  Aintabli ( talk ) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NNAME : "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created."  All I can find is a fictional character in the Turkish TV series Tatlı Küçük Yalancılar and apparently the same character in a film, both played by Aslı Tandoğan .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:46, 22 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
Fliff Social Sportsbook: ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Pennsylvania .  ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet ,  and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Cited to a bunch of thinly concealed native advertising .  SI [55] - This isn't an independent review; promotional call to actions everywhere: "signing up for a NEW account", "Join Fliff today", etc.  Chicago Tribune [56] - "Fliff combines the excitement of sports betting with the camaraderie of social media", "Current Fliff offer", exclusively promotional.  The Washington Post source is better, but it seems to be the only acceptable source.  ~ A412 talk!  00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Besides the Washington Post article, there isn't any other WP:GNG coverage present, either in the article or elsewhere.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per Letsrun.  Only 1 decent source, and no evidence of anymore to pass WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - very weak coverage, does not meets GNG.  Bikerose ( talk ) 02:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devoke water 19:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Morabito (brand): No references, no third parrty coverage.  Qcne (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion ,  and France .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The versions in history are borderline G11.  Even if closed under WP:NOQUORUM , it should not be restored on request.  There does not appear to be any content not taken from the company about page , which defaults to Japanese for some reason, though it does seem to be paraphrased enough to avoid a G12.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:15, 26 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
Bims Paradise English High School: Only a primary source provided.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and India .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no sources on Google either.  Adler3 ( talk ) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL due to lack of sources.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 12:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find anything better than Justdial and similar database entries.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Sports broadcasting contracts in Montenegro: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, no source whatsoever.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Montenegro .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:32, 6 April 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!  22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE .  Fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST .  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:07, 18 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
Sin Hyok: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Simione001 , what is your reasoning for thinking the article should be deleted?  You should spell out your reasoning in your nomination.  As it stands, this will likely be a speedy keep.  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are databases or not independent, nothing to establish notability.  Avilich ( talk ) 18:23, 28 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
List of violinist/composers: e.g. "list of [gender] [nationality] [instrument] [genre]" or "list of [subgenre] [genre] bands from [country]".  Often I don't know where to draw the line and err on the side of ignoring them.  In this case, "violinist/composer" doesn't appear to be a notable cross-categorization.  We have lists of violinists and lists of composers.  We don't need combinations of instruments/musical activities (primarily WP:SALAT but also WP:NLIST ).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is tangential, but I find "composer" categorization frustrating.  Every jazz musician notable enough to have an article has composed at least one original tune, which makes deciding how to apply Category:Jazz composers difficult.  Mach61 ( talk ) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is overcategorization, specfically WP:ARBITRARYCAT .  We don't really need a list about composers who are also violinists/violinists who are also composers, especially when the list says that certain musicians who were/are both are excluded from the list.  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT .  The article's rationale for including or not including people is unconvincing, and I agree with the nominator's reasoning.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure.  Strictly speaking as a reader I would see some value in a list of persons famous as violinists who also wrote notable compositions.  I see much less value in a list of famous composers who also happened to play the violin (though maybe not at a professional level).  So, perhaps keep but clean up?  Tea2min ( talk ) 07:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Youngboi OG: I'm not entirely convinced this isn't a G3 but I don't particularly feel the need for this to be speedied either, already had an admin look at it privately.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most links listed doesn't exist.  Appears to be a hoax .  @T.C.G. [talk] 14:45, 3 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
Liam McCay: Theroadislong ( talk ) 19:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , and Music .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 19:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  You beat me to the nomination.  I can find an entry on Nialler9 , which appears to be a blog with minimal editoral oversight, therefore non-reliable.  Plus a couple of YouTube WP:INTERVIEWS .  Besides that, everything is Spotify and last.fm listings, publicly editable wikis, etc.  Also of note, it was declined thrice at AfC by three different reviewers, then moved to mainspace by the creator.  Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found the following sources but they are not enough to establish notability.  [6] GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 20:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per GoldenBootWizard276 Mach61 ( talk ) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He does get significant mention in this article from Stereogum .  The rest of the sources presented so far don't look great so he would still need more for me to be convinced, but at least it's not nothing.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG .  dxneo ( talk ) 12:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TOOSOON .  As noted above, he has been covered in Stereogum as a representative of a rising genre (such as it is).  It might help if he could nail down his stage name, because he got a few media mentions when he worked under the name Sign Crushes Motorist.  But for the time being, I don't think this adds up to "significant" coverage as required at WP:SIGCOV .  He might have a future but it's too soon for us.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the source are reliable even the Stereogum is user created.  Can't find anything remotely reliable to verify his notability.  ww2censor ( talk ) 10:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - A case of, at best, WP:TOOSOON , and notable that, per Thriftycat, it was mainspaced despite being 3x rejected at AfCc, very poor form.  Lack of RS, lack of sigcov, GNG not met, etc.  SeoR ( talk ) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom   -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 21:05, 25 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
Royal Dokmaideng Hotel: Coverage is mainly listings like in travel guides.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Business ,  and Laos .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 17 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
TB10Cs1H3 snoRNA: No source besides one paper.  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise what multiple sources have said about something, providing the reader with an overview.  If there's only one source, the reader might as well read it.  As a general guideline, I'd say that if a biomolecule has never appeared in a review article (rather than a primary research article) it's unlikely to be appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia article.  Elemimele ( talk ) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thanks @ Elemimele - i have another nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TB8Cs3H1 snoRNA - please review.  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:12, 9 November 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!  05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless secondary sources can be found.  Owen× ☎ 14:37, 16 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
Take 21: As always, every film festival is not automatically entitled to have an article just because its own self-published website formerly offered primary source verification that it existed -- the notability test requires WP:GNG -worthy reliable source coverage about it in media independent of itself to establish its significance.  But the only (deadlinked but waybackable) footnote that's ever been added here was an event calendar listing, not analytical coverage about the festival -- and even on a ProQuest search for other sources, I only found the festival's own press releases about itself and a few stray glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people, with virtually no substantive coverage that had the festival as its subject to fulfill either GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH .  For added bonus, the article was likely written for at least semi-advertorialized purposes, because until I saw it a few minutes ago it was shot through with dozens of WP:ELNO -violating embedded links to profiles for almost every film named in the article body on an offsite directory or streaming platform, which is not how Wikipedia articles about film festivals are supposed to be written.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE No mentions in media about the festival that I can find, it's been defunct for over a decade now, this was some attempt at PROMO that never worked for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This described someone involved in the event, but it's not sigcov [1] Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:53, 29 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
Eschatology of artificial intelligence: The term eschatology isn't mentioned in the most of the source, and given the mix of references there is no clear target (the 3 linked topics all being sufficiently well-developed and not needing the 6 references here).  WP:Original Research .  My searches don't find reliable sources supporting Eschatology of artificial intelligence as a distinct topic.  Klbrain ( talk ) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - The article author made some changes after I raised these concerns earlier , but the situation doesn't seem to have improved much.  The whole article is synth .  StereoFolic ( talk ) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , reads like an essay.  Maybe something can be salvaged and merged to Philosophy of artificial intelligence ?  Though the philosophy article is also not a good example...  Artem.G ( talk ) 10:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Foreign interventions by Russia: Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation.  Sadads ( talk ) 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Lists ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not sure how energy dependency goes in a list about foreign (military) interventions in Russia.  The rest of the list seems fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991–present) and List of battles involving the Russian Federation exist already.  D r e a m Focus 21:21, 13 April 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!  23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:POVFORK .  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 02:40, 21 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