hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
S3 Movies: 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment , Companies ,  and Odisha .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ DreamRimmer , though I'm aware about the GNG, but since there are not much articles on English language.  That may causing this issue.  Since there is a similar article, Tarang Cine Productions , so I through to create it.  - Sangram Keshari Senapati ( talk ) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ssgapu22 if there are other citations in other languages, please provide them for our review.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few references in both Odia and English.  There were some news I read on newspaper, but unfortunately, there is no way to search them through Google.  - Sangram Keshari Senapati ( talk ) 11:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did a source analysis of the provided sources.  Analysis of the sources Source Content Remarks  1. KalingaTV A press release announcing new films.  No mention of S3 Movies.  2. OdiaCelebrity An interview focusing on the owner of S3 Movies.  Primarily a primary source.  S3 Movies mentioned only once.  3. Sambad A press release for a film release, not particularly relevant to S3 Movies.  No significant coverage for S3 Movies.  4. orissadiary.com Discussion about a documentary film with a passing mention of S3 Movies.  S3 Movies mentioned only once.  5. odishasambad.in  6. yugabdha.com  7. odiacelebrity.com  8. kalingatv.com  9. mycitylinks.in Press releases related to various films.  No SIGCOV for S3 Movies.  Overall, the analysis indicates that S3 Movies does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:32, 5 October 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!  23:14, 11 October 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!  23:20, 18 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
Mimosa Public School: A search indicates routine coverage like the school holding a festival.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Seems to just be a school in a place, where thankfully nothing notable has ever happened.  I also ran the same search for non-routine mentions in articles, found nothing.  Wizmut ( talk ) 18:34, 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
The Bastard Sword: Listed film festivals do not appear to be notable, and tellingly overlap significantly with those listed at Ravenstein (film) , another Eveshka Ghost production.  The primary editors to these articles appear to have a COI.  signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film .  signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One review and an possibly significant award at the LA Film Festival.  (wrong LA Film festival:D)  It could have been redirected to the director but.... the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films.... so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With which sources?  Across the three articles we have on Eveshka Ghost and their work, the totality of independent coverage is the review identified here and a local news announcement about a screening of Ravenstein (film) ( [9] ).  signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With which sources, what?  Improve the article about the director?  No idea.  If you don't think it's feasible, why did you Draft it?  My point is: since you Draftified it, let's draftily everything connected with them.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) (see also Draft:The Attack Of The Astroharvesters ) [ reply ] Comment : Yes, the LA Film Festival is notable. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...which is not the same thing as Los Angeles Film Awards , the festival actually mentioned in this article.  It's a cut-rate promotional event designed to trade on the similarity of its name, hoping people won't notice the difference.  From their website, [10] Our mission is to promote films, and be another step up in the filmmakers' careers.  Each month, our Jury will award the best films through private screenings, and make a special interview with the winner of the Best Picture award.  All winners receive a free certificate (PDF/JPG file, ready for print).  signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok I stand corrected.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not finding enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM .  No strong objections to draftifying so relevant information can be merged into Draft:Eveshka Ghost .  However, that page already has an overview of the film and all of the same award listings, so I'm not seeing anything here that would help it meet the notability standard, just a lot of primary (and promotional) sources.  hinnk ( talk ) 22:48, 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
Ri Byong-sam: Simione001 ( talk ) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article about a football player that doesn't have context and sources per WP:SPORTSCRIT .  Doesn't meet WP:GNG .  A quick WP:BEFORE inclusively were databases of football.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  13:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - given that his only claim to notability is playing one match and that match itself being a friendly match not deemed official by FIFA, I'm happy with deletion if GNG is not met.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:48, 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
Rec.music.hip-hop: I found 1 source https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2013/05/rap-10-a-hip-hop-internet-history Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not seeing anything to show notability and can't think of a merge or redirect target.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No source to establish notability.  @T.C.G. [talk] 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is a dead usenet group notable in 2024?  Obviously, no.  But there is a significant amount of history about this group, and a significant amount of history of hip-hop and rap culture that took place in this group.  Many writers, journalists, and artists participated in this group when they were young and budding.  It's unfortunate that much of this is not documented in a format that is palatable to Wikipedia.  I'm not impartial on this, as this group was formidable to me both personally and professionally.  I personally think it's worth keeping, even though the article is not in an ideal state.  I just ask you keep that in mind as a few individuals will ultimately decide the fate of the article.  Kamnet ( talk ) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kamnet : Do you have some links to show that it meets WP:GNG ?  Polygnotus ( talk ) 12:13, 29 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
0x80: No further information.  This doesn't seem notable all these years later.  Article is virtually on orphan with one substantive internal link.  Seaweed ( talk ) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Pretty great example of WP:NOTNEWS .  All sources are breaking news reports, no apparent lasting significance.  Fails WP:BASIC due to the reliance on breaking news stories.  This was mentioned in the lead of Brian Krebs , but the idea that this interview is something Krebs is known for is absurd on its face; he broke stories on serious international criminals, not just one 21-year old that ran a Windows XP botnet — DFlhb ( talk ) 08:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:1E 128.6.36.94 ( talk ) 20:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Brian Krebs or Washington Post , who were involved in the metadata event.  The guy himself seems like some random skid, and the interview itself wouldn't even have been notable if the reporter hadn't messed up and left "Roland, OK" in the metadata.  jp × g 02:20, 18 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
Lalitha Jewellery: Assessment of the references is below.  I was going to send this to AfD a week ago when recommending the Chairman for deletion, but kept this for a possible redirect as WP:ATD .  After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessement:  1. Economic Times , brief mention (one sentence).  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH  .  2. Hans India , interview with the Chairman of the company and fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on the byline.  Likely a PR piece.  3. Sakshi , another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above.  4. Economic Times , company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg.  Fails CORPDEPTH.  5. DT Next , written by the Chairman of the company.  Not independent.  6. New Indian Express , Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication.  7. Deccan Chronicle , a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism.  Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening.  8. India Today , this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT.  However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company.  9. Tamil Samayam , another article about a robbery.  10. Hindustan Times , article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities.  This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself.  11. The Hindu , another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.”  The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the source assessment by the nominator.  None of the coverage count towards notability criteria for companies.  Fails WP:NCORP .  42.107.197.36 ( talk ) 06:17, 30 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
Kazem Amoli: Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG , and nothing appears to meet WP:NSCHOLAR .  Onel 5969 TT me 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :  This entry appears to be a interesting scholar, and may well be of interest to local Wikipedians in Iran, especially those in his fields However, SIGCOV is lacking.  There is a lack of in-depth coverage, and neither are there enough small instances of coverage to meet that threshold In addition, his achievements don’t appear to be so extraordinary as to meet the threshold of NPROF This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG.  Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 ( talk ) 18:02, 13 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
Kazi Shameem Farhad: Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - Agree with the nominator.  - AlbeitPK ( talk ) 07:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Military .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete No source is identified for any of the biographical information.  The only sources cited are things he wrote, cited to prove that he wrote them, mostly newspaper columns and editorials.  No source could be found containing more than a passing mention about him.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete The person is nowhere to be found although the references in the article are also rubbish sources.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 11:52, 28 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
KADY-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure why Let'srun deprodded this, as it's an obvious case.  I can't find local coverage about it whatsoever.  And I created the article many years ago, probably when LAT TV still existed.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 00:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought I had found something approaching SIGCOV (which is why I deprodded my own PROD, but it ended up being for a different station.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Definitely another remnant article from the much looser "notability guidelines" of 2007.  Looks like even then, we didn't have much more than a LAT TV press release, which probably isn't independent or significant coverage anyway.  I'm a bit puzzled about the self-contesting of the PROD too (there was an IP edit in 2011 that included a web address that contained "prod", but it was just its entry in an FCC database and that edit, which was purely a content addition, had nothing to do with proposed deletion ).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:34, 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
1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 14:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Ohio .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   No SIGCOV.   Only references are routine coverage/game reports.  Frank Anchor 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This was created as part of a campaign by User:Murphanian777 to create articles on every opponent of Notre Dame.  The only SIGCOV cited in the article focuses on the Notre Dame team with only passing reference to the TAA team.  Notability is not inherited by virtue of having played a game against Notre Dame.  Moreover there is zero SIGCOV about any of TAA's other games or any other aspect of its season.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 01:33, 27 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
Kooi-Ying Mah: Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove.  2 small mentions in google books.  Fails WP:ARCHITECT .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Architecture ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove.  Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young.  Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)."  As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.  LPascal ( talk ) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She gets no hits in Jstor.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020).  So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources.  If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.  LPascal ( talk ) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still needs more participation.  Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , nothing popped up on TWL or google.  Mach61 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  No new sources or arguments against the nomination were presented.  Svartner ( talk ) 05:13, 15 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