hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Christian and Joseph Cousins: Neither twin appears to be notable.  I cannot find more than brief mentions in reliable sources.  Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete imdb urls are not enough for inclusion into wikipedia, but a proper searching for reliable sources might help.  -- VertyBerty ( talk ) 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Some critical notice of the pair 30 yrs on, [12] and [13] .  Gsearch news brings up several articles about the pair.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That yahoo source ([2]) provides a bit of bio info, but the bloody-disgusting.com ([1]) ref is a single sentence mentioning the twins.  Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added the yahoo ref to the article and revised the content to match the source.  So far this is the only RS in the article.  Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Further coverage from Looper [14] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, @ Oaktree b , I've added both sources to the article.  I still don't think the twins are notable, but at least the article is in slightly better shape now and, if kept, has refs.  Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjects directly and indepth meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.  [15] , interview in an article about Schwarzenegger [16] where are they now with interview quotes from subject.  Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found.  // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 21 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
The International Resource Privilege: While I personally agree completely with the sentiments expressed, it’s quite unclear that it passes encyclopedic muster, in my opinion.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 09:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 09:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:09, 17 March 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!  05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTESSAY + WP:OR .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:08, 4 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
Kyiv Uprising (1018): Reading the latter it seems that such "uprising" isn't the most plausible end of the Bolesław I campaign, so nominated article can be also considered as possible WP:HOAX .  Marcelus ( talk ) 15:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Marcelus ( talk ) 15:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poland and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete .  No interwikis, one broken reference claiming that there was something in the Internet Archive but with no link to follow.  Redirect if a reliable source can be found that this term was even used for this incident, delete otherwise per nom's argument this is a CFORK/HOAX.  My BEFORE (GB/GS search for this name in Polish and English) yielded nothing.  PS.  I see the author of this has created several similar articles.  Battle of Radovychi is in mainspace.  Most languish in draft: Draft:Battle of Monastyrysche (no sources), Draft:Battle of Yankivtsi (no sources), Draft:Struggle of King Danylo against the Golden Horde (one badly formatted source)... if the author reads this, they really need to study WP:V .  PPS.  And stuff like a heading "Polish War Crimes against the innocent Ukrainians in the Chełm and Podlasie Voivodoships (1942)" suggest WP:NPOV would make a good reading too.  Sigh.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insufficient evidence of notability in scholarly sources.  - Altenmann >talk 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I've seen hoaxes with better sources.  Not worth a separate article.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 22 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
Blanca Aliaga: I do not believe this to be enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG , though there might be some sources out there that I missed.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Bolivia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Due to the number of Bolivian players who have generated an AfD recently, an article List of Bolivia women's international footballers .  could be created.  From what I've seen, these lists are the best solution to the individual WP:GNG problem for female players.  Svartner ( talk ) 10:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey @ Svartner : , that is very much a possibility and a good WP:ATD .  The "GNG problem" in question lies with a specific user who created thousands of stubs of non-notable footballers, not with women's footballers in general.  See my comment here from a few weeks ago.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:42, 30 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
Mahabharat (animated TV series): No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG.   Series that is only on YouTube and  and a streaming service.   Not only does it not have GNG sources, it really has zero sources.     Of the two references, one is to it's sales page and the other is a link to one of it's youtube videos.  North8000 ( talk ) 18:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Internet ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Fails WP:GNG .  Two unreliable sources and no other with any coverage on the series to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone page.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note Creator moved it to draft during the AFD discussion and that move was reversed.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification which is what the creator seems to want.  Their participation here would be welcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:09, 17 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
Ganga News: The site itself should be blacklisted but that's a discussion for another forum.  None of the references check out, the only online availability of any info are some regurgitated press releases on social media.  — Spaceman Spiff 11:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India .  — Spaceman Spiff 11:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bihar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NCORP .  I was unable to find significant coverage of this organisation in reliable sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:01, 2 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
Nodance Film Festival: Passing mentions found online.  TLA (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and Utah .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 14 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
Lexie Madden: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Wyoming .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This does not fit WP:BLP1E as she not only won Miss Wyoming, but came in as 3rd runner up at Miss America 2013 , won Wyoming's Miss Junior Royal Miss in 2009 and won Miss Goshen County 2012.  The 3rd runner-up spot at bigger pageants is basically a podium style finish at pageants, while say in something like racing, it would be seen as an average result.  I feel the sources listed are enough to meet WP:GNG .  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 01:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Just want to note that the 2nd runner up and 1st runner up winners in this competition don't have articles so decent placement in a beauty contest is not an automatic qualifying factor in having a standalone article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:09, 10 August 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!  01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is classic BLP1E.  Each one of the presented cites (but for the wedding announcement) are local sources concerning her strictly local pageant wins eleven years ago.  Any winner would have gotten this local coverage.  As a living person, we owe the subject direct detailing with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.  We don't have any of that here, we only have pageant coverage from before she graduated college.  And the wedding announcement, which is itself a blog post from her cousin who happened to professionally photograph the wedding (so doubly connected).  As a matter of BLP policy, we need much more direct detailing and diverse sourcing before we should justify such an article.  BusterD ( talk ) 09:15, 22 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
Gaurang Jani: Also reads like a resume.  Sohom ( talk ) 11:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Sexuality and gender , India ,  and Gujarat .  Sohom ( talk ) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not seeing anything that would pass WP:PROF; there's a single moderately cited paper (68) but it's heavily coauthored and HIV is a fairly high-citation field; nothing else I could see with more than a few citations in GS.  Leaning Delete unless anyone has anything better.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:46, 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
Angelina Beck: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Europe .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:35, 30 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
Stephanie Mack: Nswix ( talk ) 00:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Andre 🚐 00:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Also has a {{ Lead too short }} tag from nearly two years ago.  interstate five 01:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, not much potential here as subject doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO .  WhichUser AmI 06:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - doesn't pass GNG, notable not inherited twice removed.  WikiVirus C (talk) 11:57, 19 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
Top 25 Canadian Immigrant Awards: As always, awards are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show third party media coverage about them in reliable sources to demonstrate that they've been externally validated as significant -- but 18 of the 19 footnotes here are to the award committee's own self-published content about itself, which are not support for notability.  And while one footnote does actually lead to a piece of real media coverage, that isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is primary.  There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have more and better sourcing than just stuff it published itself.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  Its own website can't be used to establish notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with above.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Muhamad Sharip Othman: Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Royalty and nobility ,  and Malaysia .  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep good article for others to read minus all of the red lining just needs the red lining fixed and it will look good thanks Briannemartindale ( talk ) 23:25, 22 May 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!  05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I did not find any other WP:RS besides the one on the article, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:25, 22 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
Cambodia–Kosovo relations: LibStar ( talk ) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Cambodia ,  and Kosovo .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article helps as a split to address WP:SIZE issues at said article.  A move can be considered if needed, such as Cambodia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 02:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nah bro this is a very important article we MUST keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringlebob ( talk • contribs ) 14:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Relationship without any established notability.  Svartner ( talk ) 20:11, 14 January 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!  02:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as there is nothing substantial or notable here.  ― novov (t c) 09:13, 17 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
The Charleston Promise Neighborhood: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 01:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and South Carolina .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Economics ,  and Social science .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 13 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!  03:34, 20 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
Lauren Evans (Scottish footballer): The best that I could find was Daily Record , which has 2 quotes from her, an image caption and a passing mention.  That's not enough for GNG.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:54, 13 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
Sridharan Madhusudhanan: Marked for notability concerns since 2018.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , India ,  and Azerbaijan .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Poor sources with no significant coverage on the biography of the subject.  Page about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced is not noteworthy.  Fails WP:BIO .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:47, 27 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