hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Killface (2018 film) : Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Africa and Canada .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no reliable source coverage in real media shown at all — and if anybody's got the skills to find the kind of sourcing needed to salvage a badly-sourced Canadian film, it would be me, but I can't find anything notability-building that's been overlooked either.  Also, "Best Student Film at the Vegas Movie Awards" is not a notability-making award under WP:NFILM either — even if you're going for "won an award" as your film's notability claim, the award still has to be a notable award that gets media coverage , which that isn't.  As near as I can tell, it appears to be one of those fly-by-night fake film festivals that doesn't really screen films for the general public at all, and instead exists as an "award mill" where any self-promoting wannabe can buy themselves an "award" so that they can talk up their film as an "award winner" — literally the only things I can find on the web that talk about the Vegas Film Awards at all are press releases self-published by the "winning" filmmakers, and that does not a notable award make.  Note also Patrick Lualua Jr , another recent creation by the same editor about this film's director.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per norm.  Does not meet WP:NFILM .  Only sources are IMDb which are not WP:RS .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 22:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Bearcat has said all that needs to be said, nothing to add, can't find anything other than listings either, definitely doesn't pass any notability criteria at all.  Tehonk ( talk ) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per norm  -- Devoke water 01:49, 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
Cho Yong-nam : Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
WHCQ-LD : Most recent edits were by User:Whcq , which proves WP:COI .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Many of the same ( GNG and COI ) issues with the articles for co-owned WPRQ-LD and WEBU-LD apply here too.

Discussion outcome: delete
List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans.  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS ; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY , some including primary sources are dead links.  one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability.  Besides being by a banned sock.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Basketball ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT , failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE , WP:PRIMARY , WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on the policy of WP:NOTDATABASE .  Fails WP:LISTN and probable WP:LISTCRUFT .  Bgv.  ( talk ) 06:17, 23 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
Aradhya Malhotra : The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016.  One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable.  However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ( [24] [25] [26] [27] ) or articles written by the subject ( [28] [29] ) or about the games and not the subject at all ( [30] ).  Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a "friend".  Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability.  A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems.  The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra.  Appreciate your thoughts.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  as per nom Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:16, 16 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
Moderate nationalism : Is there any appetite for deletion on this, or perhaps any other, basis?  Yr Enw ( talk ) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there’s no doubt the term is in use to mean approximately similar things but stitching together some disparate uses of a term isn’t the basis for an encyclopedia article.  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 13 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
Reverse Engineering for Beginners : Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent sourcing has not been found.  Prod tag was removed by the book's author, so here we are at AFD.  MrOllie ( talk ) 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Engineering ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To my mind NBOOK and GNG are almost the same here: we need multiple reliable in-depth independent sources about the book, most likely published reviews.  We don't have any and I couldn't find any.  Even if we take a laxer view of NBOOK, the article's claim that this is "recommended by several universities" does not pass #4 (that is only for books that are, themselves, the object of study in courses at multiple schools, not for books used as textbooks of courses about something else).  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We're interested in whether secondary attention has been paid to the book, and that's not being shown.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : NBOOK and SIGCOV not met.  3 reviews condition also not fulfilled.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:14, 28 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
G&Y : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 30 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!  08:35, 6 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!  04:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources provided are all non-independent – clearly this did exist (see archived copy of ref 1 and first external link), but I can't find anything at all online to support a notability claim.  I can't see a good redirect based on the article contents either.  I wouldn't be particularly surprised if someone was to find print coverage somewhere, but with what's available to me I can't find anything.  Tollens ( talk ) 09:52, 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
Kota Yanagisawa : The only half-decent source found is Livedoor , a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass.  Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 17:36, 12 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
Litblog : No evidence for notability separate from the blog article.  DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Internet .  DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not even an unsourced claim to notability.  Ten years with a "does not cite any sources" tag is enough.  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 19:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This could be a decent article if someone would make the effort to add some inline citations.   The two articles from the Guardian and the Village Voice piece (all in the "external links" section) should be enough to establish notability.   I agree that the article is full of OR and needs to be cut down quite a bit, but with some effort there could be a reasonable article here.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect Does not cite any sources.  The two articles mentioned talk about it only a bit and at best this is right for a redirect, if someone can name a logical direction.  Archrogue ( talk ) 18:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I thought about draftifying, but articles should be based on sources, not looking for sources to a text already written by someone else - no one will do that either.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:57, 28 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
Astrid Chevallier : Not notable.  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women ,  and France .  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I couldn't find any good sources that show notability.  The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary.  Cortador ( talk ) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete already deleted from French wiki consensus was not notable.  Orange sticker ( talk ) 09:51, 3 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
Sudden Death (band) : Unsourced since 2007 but failed an AFD in 2008 due to no consensus.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I also couldn't find any coverage from a sources that wasn't a primary source, or one that would meet reliability standards.  With that in mind I agree that it doesn not appear to meet WP:GNG or 1-8 of WP:NMUSIC , and given the requirement for verification in a reliable source, I don't think it meets 9-12 either.  Shaws username ( talk ) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD , ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 13:56, 24 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
Weberton : I can't find any evidence that Weberton (not to be confused with the hundreds of players called 'Weverton') passes WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Japanese Wikipedia lists the clubs that he played for but I can't find any decent non-database coverage, even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per nom.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – According to ogol.com.br [6] he had no notable spells at any club.  It includes a spell at Corinthians, but I didn't find anything about it.  Svartner ( talk ) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Online, WP:CIRCULAR and no WP:SIGCOV for WP:ATHLETE at the moment.  TLA tlak 02:34, 21 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
Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu : PROD contested with a single additional source.  Still seems to fail NFILM and GNG.  UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India ,  and Kerala .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , we have a significant review in English so I think that we should be assuming that sufficient additional coverage exists in the Malayalam language unless someone can demonstrate that isn't the case.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there exists a review from a reliable source 23 years after it was released indicating it would surely have received press and reviews when it was released.  It is extremely hard to source reviews for old Malayalam movies that were made before internet became common in the country, and considering the star cast it would have received more than 2 reviews had it released now.  Jupitus Smart 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an article from 2014-2021, and no sources could be found in that time or until now.  WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST but it should not be up to someone to show that sources do not exist !  As I mentioned at the RfU before it was restored, the only significant source we have, the review, could have been more than a basic plot narration.  Delete if this is the best we can do with this article.  Jay 💬 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It is for those seeking to retain content to provide verification/sources; assuming they exist isn't what we do here.  Stifle ( talk ) 10:35, 22 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
Michael Weicker : Accepted by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic .  US-Verified ( talk ) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is the second nomination and it runs the risk of being as unaffected as the first, due to a lack of participation.  Well, as far as I understand the situation, his brother is notable and he is not.  The German WP page about him has been removed .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : This is not notable, and this is the second nomination.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found for this individual, there seems to be lots of coverage in the sportosworld world for a person with a similar name, nothing about a film person.  Gsearch in . de sites goes straight to his personal website, then various promo sites, then peters off...  The awards section lists more than a dozen; if the person was this this renown, I'd expect to find coverage of them all over the place; there just isn't any.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Rights holder" appears to mean "owns the copyright", which isn't terribly notable, you can assign it to anyone with the right legal setup.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 19 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
Marija Stasiulytė : All I found were passing mentions ( 2009 , 2010 , 2011 , 2012 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Lithuania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I concur with the @ GiantSnowman statement.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Marcelus ( talk ) 12:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh, another one of those athlete microstubs?  Delete .  Prodraxis ( talk ) 03:09, 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