hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Daniel Suhr: Hundreds of firefighters have died in 9/11, not all of them merit a separate article.  The conditions of his death don't seem to be all that special.  At best I think we could redirect this to Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Deaths by jumping or falling , given that this page is getting 6k views a month and its creator already wrote about Suhr there.  SparklyNights ( t ) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Terrorism ,  and United States of America .  SparklyNights ( t ) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete perhaps being the first fireman to die in the tragedy could be notable, but I can't find much coverage.  [60] is about all I find...  I've seen articles for other victims that had their 911 calls used in subsequent trails, which shows some lasting notability; this individual is simply remembered for having died.  Again, while tragic, not every victim will be notable almost 25 years later.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - he's notable and his death was referenced in court cases.  It seems to meet WP:GNG .  -- Rockstone Send me a message!  11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – He is probably as notable as Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara .  Furthermore Suhr was the first FDNY firefighter to perish on 911.  Pelle S.H. ( talk ) 09:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – As mentioned above about Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara.  Also see Category:Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks .  If they were emergency workers on September 11, and died as a result, they are a Keep.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:14, 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: keep
Meilong railway station: and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station.  This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be deleted to avoid misleading others.  CHENG SHIYI ( talk ) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Stations .  CHENG SHIYI ( talk ) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete .  The article does now contain a citation, but regardless deletion is not the right answer here.  Either it's notable enough for it's own article or it should be merged to an appropriate article (likely the line, system or its successor).  It is almost certain that most sources about this station will be in Chinese, so someone who reads that language needs to be consulted to determine what the sourcing situation actually is.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are several sources in Baidu Baike version (Mainland China's version of Wikipedia) of this article: [55] Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Using the WP:THREE test, Oriental Morning Post , Youth Daily and Zhejiang Online News have reported on the station (or at least its closure).  Should push it above WP:GNG .  Also, the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station is an example of a WP:OUTDATED argument, which is generally not a very valid argument for deletion.  S5A-0043 Talk 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:28, 15 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: keep
Cordaid: Sources comprise a press release and routine business reporting, and a search finds nothing better.  Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT .  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands .  DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One of the major Dutch charities.  After a quick look for sources (aided by LexisNexis ), I found the following: Gedreven helpers : a book about the organization and its predecessors written by a Tilburg University professor and published by nl:Verloren Uitgeverij .  A merger with another charity received coverage from major national publications: Trouw , NOS , Nederlands Dagblad , Reformatorisch Dagblad .  Using LexisNexis to see behind the paywalls shows coverage about Cordaid's activities and history.  More than passing coverage in the articles Een opgeschud bed and "Condoom splijt de katholieke missie", Omroep Brabant , 5 October 2000 (not online) Article about jubilee by Reformatorisch Dagblad , also containing background about the charity (also covered by NOS ) Tristan Surtel ( talk ) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per arguments presented by User:Tristan Surtel .  Cordaid works with Nationale Postcode Loterij since 1996.  In 2021 Cordaid merged with ICCO.  See also this article [56] .  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Tristan Surtel.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 5 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: keep
French ship Bordelais: BinaryBrainBug ( talk ) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Transportation ,  and France .  BinaryBrainBug ( talk ) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Standard set index page per WP:SHIPMOS .  Even if included in Bordelais a SI page would still be needed Lyndaship ( talk ) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As a set index page.  WP:SHIPMOS : If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A merge with Bordelais doesn't hurt.  In fact, for readers who search for Bordelais , it would save them a click.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion on policies and guidelines as they pertain to keeping this an independent SIA or merging it to a broader page would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Lyndaship and Hawkeye.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SHIPMOS .  Mjroots ( talk ) 17:50, 7 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: keep
Ses'Top La: Donald D23 talk to me 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Won a SAFTA in 2013 , and two more in 2015 , received  5 nominations in 2018 , and received nominations in 2023 .  Made the news here , and here , passing mentions here and here following the death of Busisiwe Lurayi, it also starred Warren Masemola .  Looking at WP:NTV , it aired on SABC 1 with its omnibus on SABC 3 and it is now on Prime Video .  dxneo ( talk ) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per dxneo.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfactory article and sources - and unsubstantiated nomination.  Geschichte ( talk ) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was just going to delete this article as a CSD G5.  But now I see editors are advocating Keep, I'm unsure about this deletion.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply: I would say the current version is written by Significa liberdade and not by the banned editor, i.e. not a G5 candidate any longer.  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : TV sitcom received multiple nominations with adequate sourcing.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per dxneo, notable subject despite being a product of CSD G5 .  Qaqaamba ( talk ) 22:04, 4 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: keep
Indigo Moss: -- wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  -- wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I deprodded because in two minutes on Google found the following newspaper reviews: Coventry Telegraph The Guardian The duo the band became, Trevor Moss and Hannah-Lou (sometimes referenced in the opposite order), actually seems more notable.  It would make sense to make the article primarily about them with Indigo Moss background: KLOF Mag The Guardian South Wales Argus Americana UK I have not looked any further.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still not convinced this is WP:SIGCOV .  -- wooden superman 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand. Even the first two found by @ Thryduulf are great refs, and in the Guardian at that? Nice how bringing an article to AfD encourages people to look for references. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced, that Guardian review is pretty minor coverage really.  -- wooden superman 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above as well as coverage in The Times and Sunday Times (exercising WP:AGF ) as they are deadlinked in the article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per demonstrated significant coverage in national newspapers.  -- Michig ( talk ) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that there is coverage ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand , significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources per WP:BAND.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:34, 4 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: keep
University of Botswana Non-Academic Staff Union: LibStar ( talk ) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - non-notable union.  The academic staff union might be slightly more notable and that does not have an article.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 03:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Existence or non-existence of other articles has no bearing on notability of this subject.  UBNASU was formed in 1989 and has been involved in mutliple strike actions and appeared in the news as a result of those actions for a period of more than two decades.  Gadzani Mhotsha, former General Secretary of UBNASU, was also GS of the BFTU.  Referenced in the ICTUR trade unions of the world encyclopedia (key reference text of trade unions globally) and the FES surveys of Botswana labour movement.   Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Generally, ICTUR is an important Trade union Encyclopedia, particularly for trade unions in the global south who may be not have as many English sources nor digitally accessible sources which is important for countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias . That said, Goldsztajn has shown other existing sources even exist online. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 11:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Had not realised, but now appears to be called the University of Botswana Staff Union (see the 2018 FES Botswana report ).  There's frequent news reporting of disputes at UB featuring UBSU in last two years: UB staff, management hit deadlock as strike rages on , UB Chancellor under fire from academic, support staff over pay hike , UBASSU ponders post strike move , BOFEPUSU With UB Workers Against Norris , UBASSU, UBSU to down tools again . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename It is a relevant union, it's just simply been renamed since.  With significant reporting, which Goldsztain notes.  I think the most appropriate action would be to just add a section noting its historical name and the name change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoomCreek ( talk • contribs ) 21:43, 27 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: keep
Microteaching: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Just a quick Google search turns up some sources.  [33] [34] [35] [36] The Wikipedia article is really light on sources and citations, but this appears to be an issue with article and not the topic.  Rjj iii ( talk ) 07:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT .  It is rare in 2024 to find an article that is potentially notable, and written in standard English, yet is so terrible and lacking sources, and possibly in violation of WP:COPYVIO , that it must be started from scratch.  I would not oppose a userfy process, if someone else is willing to adopt this article.  Yet another case of a disaster of an article that is beyond normal editing processes discovered by Boleyn .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:59, 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!  23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Ridiculous nomination.  There are hundreds of reliable sources.  You find the article in poor shape?  Edit it.  That's what we do.  Also, what does being "a clear and notable term" even mean?  Central and Adams ( talk ) 02:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , despite my own cv-revdel tag, as the term obviously meets GNG.  Mach61 ( talk ) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - Quotesearching "microteaching" on google gives "about 844,000 results."  The term is notable, just the article needs work.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:39, 26 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: keep
This is the Public Domain: Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Law , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Incorrectly tagged at this point.  Sources in the article already demonstrate that subject meets GNG, but here's more [16] [17] [18] [19] — siro χ o 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] added these additional sources to article — siro χ o 23:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sources aren't very strong (hard to evaluate book mentions without you know like reading the book, but are theses evidence of notability?) but you could probably just about scrape together a claim.  Still, even if you disagree, a merge to the artist's page is better than deletion.  -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  Establishes GNG through sources recently provided, although work is still needed to improve it.  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amy Balkin .   Apart from the claim that this is an art project, the article uses a lot of words to say very little.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 20:50, 10 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!  23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per siroxo, although I think a merge as a new L3 heading under Amy Balkin#Projects could also be fine.  Without any real effort on my part to screen for the "best" sources, just grabbing three at semi-random, we've got e.g. about 150 words in this magazine article, more than 100 Spanish words in this book (preview cut off), at least 170 words in this one, and all seem fairly information-dense.  This seems comfortably within the WP:GNG and in particular all sources seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement to address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  .  To the extent we're just haggling over whether to merge, I'd say that the unique properties of a person vs. a place, which affect things like coordinates, categories, etc., would militate in favor of keeping the articles separate.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:03, 14 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: keep
ConClave (convention): Page is an advertisement.  CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An early science fiction convention that ran for 40 years and featured numerous highly notable authors.  The article is not an orphan.  I believe third party sources can be located.  In my opinion notability is low but not absent.  Ike9898 ( talk ) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This was an annual literary convention focused on science fiction that started in 1976, lasted for 40 years and featured the genre's most significant contributors, including Robert A. Heinlein , Poul Anderson , Roger Zelazny , Gordon R. Dickson , Larry Niven , Theodore Sturgeon , Ben Bova , etc.  A quick seaarch turned up the following SIGCOV: this , this , and this .  As the event ceased operations eight years ago, I do not agree with the assertion that the article is an "advertisement" for the event.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 03:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  As far as conventions go 600 people is small fry (I tried to find visitor counts online but came up empty, I think this would help the case a lot) but forty years is something.  Stumbled upon photos here .  With the names that visited the convention I think it's inching closer and closer towards surviving.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:01, 18 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: keep