hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
My.Club: Sources are either passing mention, or stunt pulling caused by the company paying lots of money, from sources of questionable reliability.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 03:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 03:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, fails NCORP.  Katy Williamson ( talk ) 07:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:59, 24 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
Teunis Nieuwoudt: I found lots of trivial mentions, especially from 2015 to 2018, but nothing substantial.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lots of mentions, but nothing really concrete for a WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:17, 26 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
K20HZ: Let'srun ( talk ) 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If this six-year station, entirely within this century, that seems to have mostly carried national/non-local programming (and was never on cable, in a market where cable is so dominant the major TV stations have branded using cable channel numbers) ever attained any significant coverage , I'd be surprised.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 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
List of recurring Entourage characters: The individual character articles like Ari Gold (Entourage) or Vincent Chase might reach the threshold of significant coverage required by WP:NOTABILITY .  But this miscellaneous list does not.  Jontesta ( talk ) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Jontesta ( talk ) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Entourage is notable, and WP:CSC #2 applies to a list of individually NN characters from a notable show or franchise.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:01, 8 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!  23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.  fancrufty article, does not serve a nav purpose, fails CLN.  WP:CSC #2 does not say that a stand alone list is always notable or appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk Delete : per TimothyBlue.  Couldn't find significant coverage per WP:BEFORE .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per TimothyBlue too.  This list is fine on Fandom but I cannot see how it deserve a spot on Wikipedia, they are recurring characters after all.  WP:ATD will be to prune it down and rename it as List of Entourage characters .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A couple things.  First, "adding together many non-notable topics" is one of three standard ways to make a list .  Second, what's really being asked is whether, in an ideal version of a very long article on Entourage, there would be a listing of recurring characters.  If so, using primary sources for basic information isn't a problem and spinning that list out to its own page isn't a problem.  Personally, I'm skeptical that such a list would be merited, so probably err on the side of weak delete, but I'm not especially familiar with the show or the sourcing around it.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 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
Portuguese in Slovakia: A whole series of these articles has been created through copy-pasting without sufficient attention to notability and with very similar content (which likely explains why the article mistakes Slovakia and Slovenia in its lede).  Much of the content (such as on Slovaks who speak Portuguese) is off-topic.  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Portugal ,  and Slovakia .  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my rationale at other Portuguese in xxx deletion discussions.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per arguments made at all the other "Portuguese in wherever articles".  AryKun ( talk ) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Maybe, Portuguese in the Czech Republic should share the fate of this article.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to nominate it if you believe that topic doesn't meet the notability criteria, Suitskvarts .  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 13:05, 29 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
Wayne Wilschut: JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:19, 21 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
Jide Johnson: Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non notable and per source WP: THREE never found.  No result per WP: BEFORE popped a result.  This, fails GNG All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 07:37, 18 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
Kathryn Knuttila: Let'srun ( talk ) 00:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Minnesota .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing found for notability [81] , newspaper Q&A, and this [82] , her school turned 100.  No sourcing we can use, non-notable as a pageant winner.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination.  The article fails WP:GNG and the references aren't much better.  The latter two bring you to dead websites, the second is a passing mention and the first is a...  Birth index?  Really?  IncompA 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nomination and

Discussion outcome: delete
Nikita Gudozhnikov: While he has played one match on the main tour level back in 2012 as a junior wildcard (doubles), it's only a WP:1E and hasn't done anything notable since.  I haven't been able to find anything in my searches beyond his ban, coming up as a WP:PRIMARY press release by ITIA or in secondary sources closely copying or paraphrasing it.  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 10:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Russia .  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 10:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 26 February 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!  09:18, 4 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!  07:37, 11 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
Michael Soltis: The article could definitely use more sources though, and since his other career has won awards, this could be sourced more to strengthen the notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 06:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Artists , Canada , North Dakota ,  and Washington .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Are any of his roles actually significant?  These are all just one or two episodes per show, usually credited as an extra or minor character like "Resistance Member" or "Uniform Cop".  It's not that the article "could be sourced more to strengthen the notability", it needs to be sourced more to establish the notability, since none of the current sources are significant coverage.  Reywas92 Talk 13:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The notability test for actors is not passed just because the article lists roles — having acting roles is literally an actor's job description , so if listing roles were all it took then every actor who exists at all would be inherently notable.  Rather, the notability test is passed by showing reliable source coverage about him and his work in order to establish that they've been externally validated as significant, but that's entirely lacking here.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NACTOR .  No evidence any of his acting roles have been significant.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:46, 5 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
Frank Richard Maloney: Fails WP:AUTHOR .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , United States of America ,  and Washington .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - Searches are somewhat complicated by a number of identically or similarly named people, but not finding any in-depth coverage in books or academia generally, or poetry anthologies specifically.  It's possible that this person is notable, there are some passing references I can find, but nothing significant.  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:42, 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
Manaka Kubota: This has been un-bundled from a squib AfD.  For BEFORE I am recycling sources offered by a "keep" voter who said they spoke Japanese offered these sources:  profile and coverage from NHK [24] , Yomiuri [25] , Nikkei [26] , multiple posts in Sanspo [27] , 47NEWS [ ja ] [28] .  One other source this article was offered.  However another voter analyzed the sources and had this to say.  None of those are close to SIGCOV, even if we were to give some kind of exception for the depth of Japanese sources (which we should not, because notability is exclusively derived from the amount and depth of IRS SIGCOV, not the importance of someone's achievements).  The first is the standard athlete blurb derived from their sports org's website N .  The second is a stats page with no secondary coverage N .  The third is a passing mention N .  The fourth is a press release N .  The fifth looks like a local-interest community news story, though I can't access the whole thing.  Like all GNG-predicting SNGs, NSPORT standards demand NOTNEWS is met, which means routine reports are not considered SIGCOV.  All in all, I still think this is not a notable athlete; simply qualifying and competing, with resultant routine stats coverage, do not notability make.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 16:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The Japanese source listed are stubs or simple profiles in point form.  All I can find are match results.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *:I agree with this comment at all.  Also, might it looks like WP:MILL case.  Might I am wrong and it is not applies here, so I won't vote.  Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk ) 10:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Strike, sock Star Mississippi 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per my arguments in the bundled nom.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: the bundled nom was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jahn ☆ Bri ( talk ) 00:34, 27 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
Shiftboard: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG .  A couple of hits in the news section of Google too.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test?  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 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!  23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them.  Hookiq ( talk ) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 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!  04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS .  Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this , this , this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published).  The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article.  There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 17:29, 18 May 2024 (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 .  Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc.  HighKing ++ 16:32, 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
I-Free: Made by two PR-editors.  It currently doesn't meet WP:CORP and can hardly be fixed otherwise than recreated from scratch.  VanoTheOldest ( talk ) 15:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  While the main company's business appears to have faded due to app stores dominating its market, and there is no clear indication of recent notable activity, there is a lot of coverage from the early 2000s.  During that time, it was considered to be among the top three companies in the market .  Some examples of non-trivial coverage: https://www.comnews.ru/content/32946 https://www.forbes.ru/forbes/issue/2015-03/280917-troe-mobilnykh https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/ifree_vyshel_v_kitaj -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I am saying this because even though a user tried to reduce the amount of promotional content earlier in it, this article has so few reliable sources to support many of the claims (there are only three citations seen in total).  Also, four of the six sections are entirely unsourced.  Hence, it gives deep concern about whether the information can be verified .  ST7733B ( talk ) 23:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been tagged for G11 speedy deletion, I'd not worry about it here until that gets solved.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko talk 19:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article seems to lack independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the company.  Failing WP:CORPDEPTH , WP:GNG , and I've concerns about the promotional tone of this article that violates WP:NPOV , WP:NOTADVERTISING , PD Slessor ( talk ) 00:49, 20 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
Nathanaël Hlemu: I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France ,  and Oceania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - played one game for a minor nation and best coverage I can find is a squad list mention at Oceania Football .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 23 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
Niko Foster: As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead have to show external validation of significance such as notable awards and/or the reception of significant coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to IMDb and/or other IMDb-equivalent directories, which are not reliable or notability-making sources at all, and the only citation that comes from a WP:GNG -worthy media outlet is just a film casting announcement that glancingly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which means it isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.  Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have stronger referencing than this, and the article has been tagged for possible WP:UPE to boot.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:56, 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