hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
TV Tonight Awards 2021: Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Websites , Lists ,  and Australia .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R .  Happily888 ( talk ) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not significant enough to keep here.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years should not have articles either.  I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables, which is undue .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the same reasons I set out in the 2022 list afd , WP:UNDUE per above and unnecessary as a redirect.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above JM ( talk ) 16:44, 17 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
Surya Group of Institutions: Relatively new, so no historical notability and no N:ORG level sourcing found.  Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Quick overlook, one source on the page and is not independent or secondary.  Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:03, 30 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
Education Facilitators: Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG .  Unreferenced for 14 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education ,  and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article on a long-defunct distance learning company, with extremely detailed but unreferenced text predominantly contributed by WP:SPA Edufacalumni .  The lack of verifiable information would suggest WP:TNT .  The generic name makes searching awkward, but I am not seeing evidence that this firm attained notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:49, 1 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
Relational meeting: - Mebigrouxboy ( talk ) 23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : It's a phrase, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable dictionary entry.  Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 17:50, 27 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
Security Shield: PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd .  Logs : 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7 -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd.  Not eligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:17, 5 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!  07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name).  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation.  I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:37, 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
Attack on Stavropol: Lacks sources, needs a good copy edit to make sense.  I suspect this is a machine translation from somewhere else but not sure where.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevermind, I see that this page was created by @ Great Circassian , a user banned for sockpuppetry.  I nominated it for speedy deletion instead.  I apologize for wasting folks' time.  Annwfwn ( talk ) Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I untagged the article.  This was not block evasion so CSD G5 is not suitable.  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah ok so I did it right the first time.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article looks completely messy and text is not properly sourced.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 23:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is how all of User:Great Circassian 's articles look like. So few sources that it's impossible to tell whether they were real events or hoax articles. L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is some kind of historical fantasy. There is not a single word in the Russian Wikipedia about this "attack". A Google search didn't yield anything either. -- Khinkali ( talk ) 22:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Such a mess that even if this was notable, the only reasonable move is to blow it up and start over . - Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The source given is too badly formatted to check.  I can't tell if this is a hoax, a non-notable historical raid, or a potentially notable battle badly presented. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the arguments above. I searched for sources but couldn't find anything of value. (As mentioned, the single reference in the article is too poorly formatted to locate.) Even if this topic is found to be notable, the article is such a mess with nothing great in the edit history to fall back on that we should start over. Bsoyka ( t • c • g ) 04:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this poorly source mess that may at least partly include hoax material/sources. Do not draftify. If there is anything here worth including in Wikipedia, it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:50, 31 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
2017 Panjgur landmine blast: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Pakistan .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No long standing coverage, seems unlikely to have future press attention even in Pakistan.  No group claimed responsibility for it so its status as terrorism is uncertain so I am uncertain of a merge to the general terror by year lists, though some the sources do call it terrorism - despite saying no group claimed it.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:48, 12 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
Kamales Lardi: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia.  The article should therefore be kept.  Dlarrpi ( talk ) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They aren't about this person though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person.  Rest are fluff pieces or PR items...  I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG .  I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Oaktree b and DE above.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A (P)romotional WP:MILL .  Refbomb also incorporated.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability .  Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:18, 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
Cayla McFarlane: The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was four sentences of coverage here .  Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2017 , 2020 , 2022 , 2023 , etc.) Additionally, this article from the Daily Express says that she is "essentially retired from international football at the ripe old age of 21."  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Trinidad and Tobago .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Fails in WP:V .  Svartner ( talk ) 02:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is an unfortunate football, that didn't get the coverage she ought to.  My search found only statistics and nothing concrete.  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 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
Melilla Corridor: There is nothing particular or specially notable about this air corridor.  Instructions regarding this air corridor (speed limitation, class of airspace, etc.) are not information that should be on Wikipedia as well.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I can't find anything talking about this that isn't air travel documents.  Most mentions of the "Melilla Corridor" are about trade and immigration.  Swordman97 talk to me 05:30, 5 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
John Derian: The sourcing has not improved since then.  I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added an interview in external links, but cannot find any independent, reliable coverage to add.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Businesspeople , Visual arts , United States of America ,  and New York .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No reliable sources, fails WP:ARTIST .  Derian appears to be a home goods manufacturer. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:31, 15 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
Ali Kahramanlı: I am having a difficult time finding reliable secondary sources for his notability.  Current references are either from the website of the sports club he once led or his family website, let alone none of the links are functioning.  The article was basically forgotten after 2015.  According to Turkish Wikipedia, he appears to have resigned from Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 8 years ago.  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and no significant coverage.  ContributorMix ( talk ) 10:15, 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
Peta Hughes: Could not find any sources, 2 primary sources provided.  If she had won a major squash championship that might be a claim for notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 19 July 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!  05:22, 26 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
Claude Bédard: The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG -worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at "referencing" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.  And we're much stricter on referencing articles properly than we were 20 years ago, so the fact that this was kept in an AFD discussion in 2005 is not definitive, especially since even some of the keep arguments at the time called for improvement that the article never saw .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is a common name in Quebec and Canada, so I find hits on all types of individuals with this name.  Nothing about this person in particular...  The one source in the article is primary.  I don't see notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  After a perfunctory search, I, too, found no sources on this fellow.  Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 29 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
Munawar Ahmad: Other than in relation to his children, there is no indication of why this individual is notable.  Zero sources that I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  In addition to the above comment, there isn't even an attempt to claim some sort of notability in the article.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per the reason above.  Noneate ( talk ) 15:02, 12 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
WSKC-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:46, 24 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!  07:29, 31 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
Shelby County Republican Party (Alabama): Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".  Much of the article consists of lists of very minor elected officials, such as members of a probate office.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Organizations , Politics , United States of America ,  and Alabama .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - NN political party organization of not an especially big county in Alabama .  This verges on spam.  19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 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