hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dan Deublein: Password (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Password (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 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!  02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Film and television DELETE - Non notable, and not necessarily written according to IMBD, the only source listed.   He does not appear to have ever been a "star", guest or otherwise.   I edited some entries under Film and television, much of which was exaggerated as to how many performances the actor did.  Possibility the author Dubliner1 is the actor Dan Deublein, as this article is the only one they ever edited.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:14, 29 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
Chavão888: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 04:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment potential COI, warned on User talk:Gustavo (Musician Wiki) at Special:Diff/1197353951 .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 05:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No relevance, appears to be promotional content.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No relevance, no sourcing, non-notable.  Worth noting that the sources [16] [17] appear to have copied from a wiki, potentially us.  Using automated Google translate shows a bracketed "[edit]" next to some of the headers.  — Sirdog ( talk ) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per above dxneo ( talk ) 13:07, 21 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
Tar Heel Wrestling Club: Sources in article are primary, BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 17:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Wrestling ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tarheel wrestling club has had multiple world medalists represent them at significant world wrestling tournaments.  It is equal to that of [Nittany Lions Wrestling Club] which is also an RTC program for the Olympics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjrocha ( talk • contribs ) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - notability is not inherited.   Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH .  Onel 5969 TT me 18:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) ( talk ) 20:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : also could not find any significant coverage, not even local -- there is nothing in any of the major Chapel Hill publications that I found, not even student media.  Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete while there may be several notable people in the club, as a whole, the club itself is not notable.  ArcAngel (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of Primary source, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS NP83 ( talk ) 10:10, 11 April 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
Defaqto: Sources also seem questionable.  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The orange tags were added by me a few minutes ago; you are free to proceed with this but I would suggest that the presence of the tags not be a part of the reason for deletion.  331dot ( talk ) 10:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This does read like a press release, sources found are mostly mentions or ratings for insurance.  Nothing for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - article is clearly promotional and entirely unreferenced except for the "History" section.  Note that another user flagged it for deletion back in 2015 via WP: PROD .  The article may be notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion but would need a complete rewrite.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:35, 27 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
Taichi Takahashi: This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Japan .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV .  Feel free to present any new sources you found.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Couple of lengthly profiles here and here .  this , this and this all found just by googling his name.  A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for presenting these.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one is from the JRFU (see the copyright at the bottom) and the second is by the same affiliate.  The others just seem like routine reporting of press conferences without much independent contribution, especially the last one.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:22, 21 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!  20:28, 14 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!  22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sourcing seems restricted to routine coverage of press announcements and interviews rather than independent in-depth profiles.  Not convinced the subject meets SPORTCRIT.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and JoelleJay lacks indepth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Vikas Gupta (born 1970): No evidence of notability of 'political activism' and chairing the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research is certainly not grounds for notability.  Note article was previously drafted to 'segregate COI/UPE' by an experienced page patroller, but returned to mainspace after declined AfC submission with no improvement.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics ,  and India .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 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!  05:28, 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
Shulamite Ezechi: BEFORE searches on Google and ProQuest remain unpromising Mach61 ( talk ) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Nigeria ,  and Scotland .  Mach61 ( talk ) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does pass WP:ANYBIO .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely meant Doesn’t in the above.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : by the BEFORE search performed during nomination.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe subject has received coverage in secondary source to pass WP:ANYBIO such as here , here , and here .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itomishor ( talk • contribs ) 10:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources are secondary, but not independent; the former source is a university Ezechi was affiliated with, the latter two interviews.  Mach61 ( talk ) 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The university is independent and secondary source since she is not affiliated.  The institution is acknowledging her notable achievement in the society.  Not all alumni gets celebrated except they are making unique notable contribution in the society.  Itomishor ( talk ) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : The subject is supported by secondary sources though the independence of the sources is vague.  So, I am voting week keep the article because of its potentials.  Bekilicious ( talk ) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : it has coverage on multiple secondary source.  Dcraigo ( talk ) 10:53, 5 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
Andy Barron: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , Photography ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not make a claim that satisfies WP:ARTIST .  Does not pass WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO .  Existing sources are 100% primary.  I searched the web and did not find any independent reliable sources.  This article has barely changed since it was first created in 2006, by an editor who only seemed to contribute a few edits almost exclusively around the topic of Switchfoot.  Note that Barron does not appear to be this photographer also by the name of Andy Barron.  - Lopifalko ( talk ) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A puff piece about a non-notable photographer.  Fails WP:ANYBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It looks like he's worked for some notable outlets, but there really isn't anything in terms of coverage about the subject himself.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 18:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Lopifalko dxneo ( talk ) 08:19, 19 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
Lisa Grotts: No sources in article are enough to establish notability and all a search threw up (a short one, I had to stop before I threw up) were bubbles of self-published guff.  Article creator looks very much like either the subject of this bio or a paid contributor.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep She's called on by media as an "etiquette expert" [7] , [8] and [9] .  Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media.  She might pass as AUTHOR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brief mention of the book here [10] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her.  I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book.  Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the "book" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there.  Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:19, 15 September 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!  22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can only find trivial mentions, nothing that I would consider WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standards I can think of.  Jacona ( talk ) 15:09, 28 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
Cheryl Kline: Also several significant assertions are unsupported by reliable, independent sources.  Paul W ( talk ) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Paul W ( talk ) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am pretty sure this is the work of a PR agent or marketing strategist who is trying a little too hard to publish a WP article on this artist.  There are also drafts by the same creator and another WP:SPA waiting in the wings for Draft:Cheryl Kline , Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline , and Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline (Figurative Painter) if this one gets deleted.  Therefore: WP:PROMO .  While the artist has some technical ability and started her own "school" and self-published her own book, an online BEFORE search does not reveal the type of independent coverage in reliable sources that we would normally find for a notable artist.  What I do find are press releases, gallery listings and other primary sources, Amazon and ThriftBooks selling her self-published book, adverts for her "school", and user-submitted content, native advertising "magazines" like Artist Portfolio Magazine where an artist can buy space to have an article, etc. I am not finding WP:SIGCOV such as in-depth reviews in notable art magazines, entries in art history books nor a a track record of important exhibitions or works in notable museum collections.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article and its three redundant drafts.  Some gallery shows and two articles in the same local newspaper that both read like retreaded press releases do not constitute a pass of WP:ARTIST .  And you do not get to keep backup drafts waiting in the wings in case your main article gets shot down.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Netherzone and David Eppstein have said all that needs to be said about notability.  The creators of the drafts (Samism1, Shaunsmith12) should probably be investigated for UPE/socking.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to closing admin: if this is deleted, what would be the best method for deleting the duplicate drafts?  Would salting be appropriate?  Netherzone ( talk ) 20:44, 22 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
Strike Social: Refs are routine business news and PR.  scope_creep Talk 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Coverage available consists of press releases (Business Insider) and routine business pieces in the usual publications such as TechCrunch and Forbes, and in local Chicago outlets, all lacking any any analysis.  Mooonswimmer 13:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and Illinois .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is coverage in WP:RS platforms, satisfy WP:GNG [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] .  62.201.239.211 ( talk ) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every single of these fail WP:SIRS .  Paid profiles, the company moving fails and Techncrunch is non-RS.  This editor has 6 edits.  scope_creep Talk 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets look at the refs: Ref 1: Paywalled.  Ref 2: [20] PR.  Moving HQ.  Its junk and not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 3: [21] This is a profile.  It is not indepedent, taken from website.  Its fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 4: [22] Providing the analytics for some reason.  It is not independent.    Fails WP:SIRS Ref 5: [23] This reporting on Forbes X of Y article.  It is non-rs.  Ref 6: [24] This is the actual Forbes X of Y article.  It is non-rs.  Ref 7: [25] Moving HQ.  fails WP:SIRS Ref 8: [26] Interview with the founder.  Fails WP:ORGIND .  Ref 9: [27] Forbes contributor.  Non-RS.  Ref 10 [28] It is pure junk.  WP:PRIMARY .  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 11 [29] WP:PRIMARY .  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 12 [30] Paid profile.  Not independent.   Fails WP:SIRS Ref 13 [31] Paid Profile.   Not independent.   Fails WP:SIRS Ref 14 [www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160707/ISSUE01/160709991/why-this-digital-ad-buying-startup-moved-to-chicago] Moving and interview and PR.  Fails WP:SIRS , WP:ORGIND .  Not a single source is valid enough to pass WP:NCORP .  It is an brochure advertising article.  scope_creep Talk 20:36, 23 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!  16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , a non-notable organisation, the article puffed out with flaky sources and the smell of advertising.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 20:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Reviewing the assement by Scope Creep, I would agree that references fail WP:SIRS .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:08, 25 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
Mark These Words: Fails WP:NALBUM ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Found no evidence of notability.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Crew as to why no AtD.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Sweden .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 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