hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup: There's no Spanish Wikipedia article on this one.  The article lists some references (no inlines), but they all just say "this event will happen on this date at this location" then explain what quidditch itself is, so no significant coverage provided.  Really wasn't able to find anything else other than an article about who won that was behind a paywall.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Europe ,  and Spain .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Quidditch Cup .  Geschichte ( talk ) 11:42, 19 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
Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur: No notable source.  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#06 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This place is an abadi which are explicitly excluded from WP:GEOLAND ( " Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable" ), since many of them are not actually villages but instead farms, factories, military bases, pumps, shops etc.  In this case Google translate tells me the name means "Thank you Hosseini" though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that.  The population is large enough that the place should eventually be converted into a village, though I don't see any evidence that this has happened.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is one of the many articles Carlossuarez46 created on places listed in the Iranian census; later investigation revealed that many of the places weren't communities at all and he didn't fully understand the sources he was interpreting.  In light of that, I think it's fair to delete any questionable-looking article he created that doesn't have additional sources.  (I'll leave it to people who know the country better to determine what counts as questionable-looking, but this article seems to.)  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:32, 18 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
Infant Jesus School, Saharanpur: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL , unsourced.  On a side note, I feel bad for the kids that have to say they went to "Infant Jesus".  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools .  Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Completely unsourced, and even searching Google turned up nothing that supports WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:27, 14 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
Eric Edem Agbana: The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country who aren't getting articles on that basis.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the seat, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him an article now.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Radio ,  and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Most coverage I can find about him seems to be about his candidacy or him saying something.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I was literally going to AfD this for exact same reason as Bearcat.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unelected candidate for office with no other claim to notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Article can be reverted to AFD as there will be other requests to recreate the page a few months from now.  In my view, he established notability after winning the primaries because of the circumstance around it.  As he's not yet a politician, does he qualify for notability as a "regular" person Heatrave ( talk ) 21:15, 19 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
1981 Buffalo State Bengals football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 16 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!  19:59, 23 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!  23:23, 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
Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design: Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , United States of America ,  and California .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Architecture .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 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
Timișoara Award for European Values: Maybe in time it will establish itself, but as of now this reads more like a press release than a reflection of notability.  — Biruitorul Talk 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Europe .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON .  The award hasn't even been given yet for the first time and we already have an article on it.  Agree with nominator that it might become notable in the future.  I'd recommend the article's writer to save it up in their sandbox or somewhere else and wait to see if that is the case.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userfy -- Sources right now are all WP:PRIMARY or WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus that it may well become notable after it is awarded and discussed in wider, secondary WP:SIGCOV with some WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE .  Also, as noted in the nomination, the article right now is filled with WP:PEACOCKs and will need to be edited extensively before it is ready for mainspace.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for the constructive feedback, which I will be happy to implement in a future version and can well understand.  I would like to point out that the nominator's political motive is obvious, as he identifies himself as a supporter of the unification of Romania and Moldova and his language is anything but neutral.  BeneEfimero ( talk ) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as puff-piece.  Dahn ( talk ) 05:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete
Tevin Gamboa: JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:42, 21 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
Mark Willis (politician): He appears to have been involved in a brief internal spat within the Republican Party as a member of a State Republican Committee, which garnered a handful of reportage at the time, but probably falls under WP:NSUSTAINED .  In particular, the initial version of the article pretty much read as a campaign document for his run at RNC Chair and included a great deal of unverified personal bio - probably created by the subject or someone closely associated with him.  This has been edited out over time for a more Neutral POV and encyclopaedic style, but there's no evidence of notability outside of that brief party-internal politicking.  It does not appear that there's anything worth merging (or redirecting) to another article unless the objections to the 2012 RNC Rule Changes were themselves considered notable enough for an article.  Hemmers ( talk ) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Hemmers ( talk ) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Military , California , Maine , Maryland ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not even technically a politician, simply a non notable political challenger.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:05, 17 April 2024 (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 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN .  Reads like a resume, skims the surface of his work background, with no substance about any of it.  Not notable anything.  Sourcing is all political focus.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:04, 22 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
All-Russian Committee for Defence of Kuriles: ltb d l ( talk ) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Incomplete article ,Please add secondary sources before deleting GQO ( talk ) 7:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) i think you've got that backwards.  ltb d l ( talk ) 07:24, 5 April 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!  04:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I was unable to find English-language books or journals which mentioned this organisation.  Web searches of both the English- and Russian-language names did not return reliable sources which went beyond brief mentions.  Yue 🌙 20:43, 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
Church of Ireland Historical Society: Sources cited in the article are all primary.  Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage.  Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ( [12] , [13] ) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ( [14] , [15] ).  I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ( [16] ) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources.  I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising.  signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Christianity ,  and Ireland .  signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator source analysis.  I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own.  Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent .  Or this in The Phoenix.  A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention .  The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom.  Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org.  I also can't conceive of target for a redirect.  Or other WP:ATD .  Guliolopez ( talk ) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI.  There's just not enough sourcing .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:30, 4 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
Where is Kate?: , an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales , and the Mother's Day photograph that followed.  I immediately started the first AfD discussion , motivated by editors at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales who had resisted calls for including the topic on that article.  The first AfD discussion closed on 19 March as keep.  From 20 March, editors at the BLP noticeboard raised concerns that the article violated WP:BLP , which was hardly cited in the first AfD.  On 21 March, Simonm223 initiated a deletion review , believing that the closing statement of the first AfD did not sufficiently weigh the BLP concerns.  This deletion review closed on 31 March as no consensus.  With the announcement of the princess' cancer diagnosis on 22 March,

Discussion outcome: delete
Drew Shirley: Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:BANDMEMBER .  glman ( talk ) 22:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  glman ( talk ) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:50, 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
Suzan Mazur: No independent references.  Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 07:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The absence of any independent sources makes this one an easy one to delete , and I'll be glad to see it gone.  Nonetheless, the fact that someone is thoroughly objectionable doesn't mean that they are not notable: we can all think of repulsive and dishonest politicians who are notable whether we like it or not.  So if someone writes a properly sourced article about Suzan Mazur it will probably need to be tolerated.  I should add that I only have direct knowledge of her antics at the Altenberg 16 meeting (which I have discussed with an organizer of that meeting).  I have no idea whether she really represented the USA on a visit to Iran or about the other things in the article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Definitely fails WP:JOURNALIST and I'm not seeing enough citations to prove any other type of notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The notability of a journalist is not established by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of coverage about other things , it's established by referencing the article to sources in which she's the written-about subject of content authored by other people .  But the sources here are of the former type, not the latter.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:59, 24 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