hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment: See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#List_of_spiral_tunnels_and_tunnels_on_a_curved_alignment , and pinging Trainsandotherthings who commented there.  Artem.G ( talk ) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Artem.G ( talk ) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Some of these individual tunnels are notable, but there's no evidence to support them being notable as a group .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I would think it's impossible to have a spiral tunnel that isn't curved, so the list doesn't make sense.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : I think that you're reading the title as a single group.  To me, "List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment" reads as containing two groups:  (i) spiral tunnels  (ii) tunnels on a curved alignment.  Whilst all spiral tunnels are curved, not all curved tunnels are spiral.  -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 22:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ok, that makes sense.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep dewiki seems to have articles and lists for both spiral loops (Kreiskehren) and curved tunnles (Kehrtunnel), with plenty of sources to establish the distinct notability of each.  small jars t c 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Some of the tunnels may be notable on their own, but I do not see anything discussing this topic as a set .  Appears to be WP:SYNTH .  -- Kinu t / c 17:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . According WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not important per se . -- ZH8000 ( talk ) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What on earth are you even talking about?  That doesn't make any sense, you're implying this article gets a carve-out from SYNTH by grossly misinterpreting part of an explanatory essay that does not in any way support that position.  Regardless, this does not meet WP:NLIST .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:35, 12 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
Alex (footballer, born 2001): PROD was contested without making any effort to address the article's WP:SPORTCRIT failure.  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Brazil .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrazilianDude70 : , I trust you most with Brazilian footballers, any chance you can confirm if there's any valid coverage for this athlete? -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ortizesp : No notable coverage, only a brief direct mention here due to his loan to Taquaritinga.  Other than that, nothing substancial, thus delete .  BRDude 70 ( talk ) 20:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I wasn't going to contest the original PROD, because Alex Honório does fail GNG.  It's an article I created a while ago relying on WP:FOOTY , and I did expect to find sources when searching, but was unable to.  Shame, but delete.  Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:50, 29 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
Didihat district: Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable "proposals."  Aintabli ( talk ) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , India ,  and Uttarakhand .  Aintabli ( talk ) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following articles, because they all pertain to the same problem: Ranikhet district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kotdwar district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Yamunotri district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Aintabli ( talk ) 17:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we perhaps merge these into a List of proposed districts in India ?  BD2412 T 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are notable proposals.  — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all nominated entries.  Per WP:NGEO , Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG .  In this case, a mention in one article does not meet WP:GNG .  Moreover, we should avoid creating permastubs which will never be improved because the district never actually existed.  Broc ( talk ) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more support when closing a bundled nomination and there is a Merge suggestion though to a nonexistent article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Do not meet WP:GNG .  Articles can be recreated if these districts are created someday.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:45, 25 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
UWC Tag Team Championship: The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  Page of this title promotion is deleted due to not being notable enough thereof same is for title.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:31, 23 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
Ideal English School: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra .  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 29 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
Chowdhury Nafeez Sarafat: I want my privacy.  I don’t want to be in public.  My information doesn’t benefit public interest.  Azalia2006 ( talk ) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] '''comment. '''  WP:COI.  Nom may have nominated this article for deletion because of the paragraph that reads: ''"The cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore was arrested under the Digital Security Act for drawing cartoons critical of the government including one where he portrayed Sarafat as a bank embezzler."'' 🔥 22spears 🔥 18:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails BLP, BIO, GNG.  No sources show notability, just routine news stories.  There is no way to tell if nom is subject, but this fails based on sources.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 23 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
All-Knighters: Only worked on independent level.  According to Cagematch, they only had 32 matches .  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 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
Transparency (philosophy): Тай Лунг ( talk ) 06:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice .  (1) The article as-is does not contain any information with sources, and the latter (on a generic topic, see #3 below) are not easy to find.  (2) The current mathematically-looking text does not describe the subject at all.  (3) The topic is quite legit, the term "transparency" is actively used in philosophy (mostly epistemology ).  However, epistemic transparency already has an article.  (4) Generic topic of transparency in philosophy might be notable (there is, for example, doxastic transparency with common traits), but is tricky to write about while avoiding WP:SYNTH .  Therefore, quickly delete the current proto-stub, but do not preclude creation of a better version in the future.  -- Викидим ( talk ) 18:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : transparency is used in a number of different ways in philosophy depending on the context, not seeing any evidence a unified article is warranted.  I agree with Викидим that potentially a better article could be created in future if appropriate sources are found.  Shapeyness ( talk ) 17:50, 11 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
Walking on Eggshells: Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music .  Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:15, 24 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
Calum Macdonald (presenter): I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.  On top of that, all the sources currently listed in the article are not independent of the subject.  During a WP:BEFORE I saw some sources, but they turned out to be interviews.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Radio ,  and Scotland .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:04, 10 August 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!  22:49, 16 August 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
CinErotic FilmFest: Searches only returned trivial mentions.  Seems to lack enough significant coverage to prove its notability.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing mention as "the inevitable CinErotic FilmFest" in The NYT; a brief description in Thrillist (actually twice ), brief descriptions in books and named/listed on Georgia-related websites.  So, I'd suggest a redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film , where I took the liberty to add it. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Promotional and not notable.  Drmies ( talk ) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Mushy Yank's suggestion.  Like him, I only found glancing mentions, which means a line might be appropriate in a larger article but it doesn't have the depth of coverage needed to establish notability.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film as an ATD .  CycloneYoris talk!  20:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no evidence of notability.  As an apparent one-off event that happened 13 years ago, I would also not redirect, as inclusion of a defunct festival in a list is questionable.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:14, 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
Raquel Romano: , the article fails WP:N , WP:MINIMUM and another notability criteria.  It's a clear case of WP:SPAM , created by an editor with a long history of WP:PAID and WP:SOAPBOX .  None of the source are about the author, let alone being "significant coverage".  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Brazil .  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 23 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
Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok: Likely CoI or promo and other edits adding uncited content seem to potentially have a close connection as well.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Judaism ,  and California .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:44, 12 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!  21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Scattered mentions of the institution in six hits in Gnews, mostly name drops.  What's used for sourcing in the article isn't helpful.  This is the best in a RS I could find, but it's simply a rating [22] .  Gsearch goes straight to the school's website.  All totaled up, nothing we can use for reliability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:07, 21 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
Advance Steel: Hardly sourced.  Reads like product advertisement.  Kleuske ( talk ) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software .  Kleuske ( talk ) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Same deal as Advance Concrete : reads like an ad, only primary sources, searches bring up nothing significant.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NPRODUCT which requires "sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources."  My searches for this product did not produce anything meeting that requirement.  Spintendo 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as per above, fails WP:NPRODUCT . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:58, 30 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
TrashCon: Nothing here that suggests any notability.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  Velella Velella Talk 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable and possibly written in a promotional tone.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 13:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Rusty4321 talk contribs 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The page creator and primary contributor to the article have been CU-blocked as socks.  Rusty4321 talk contribs 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”  This article does not meet any of these criteria.  Topjur01 ( talk ) 16:52, 21 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
Ocean State Cup: Let'srun ( talk ) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Rhode Island .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG .  This state-level inter-university competion does not have significant coverage in secondary sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:37, 19 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
Emile Benoit (writer): The book reviews at the bottom are from what appear to be pay-for-review sites, so this article also does not meet WP:AUTHOR .  - car chasm ( talk ) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  - car chasm ( talk ) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete after some investigation, no way to verify, notability guidelines not met.  — siro χ o 10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searches for the name mostly turn up other people with similar names.  Searches for the publications turn up enough to verify existence but not significant coverage by reliable sources.  Notability is not demonstrated.  Seems promotional.  Author is pretty much an SPA.   -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 12:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Emile Benoit should be redirected back to Émile Benoît .  DanielRigal ( talk ) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I find his books in Gboks, some mentions of a professor in 1972 with the same name (but the subject here would be 9 yrs old).  Having other best-selling authors on the NYTimes book list like your work is fine, but "famous people liking my work" is notability-by-association.  I couldn't find critical reviews of his works, or much of anything really.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 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