hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Roberto Molinelli: Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO .  4meter4 ( talk ) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to be notable as a composer/musician/conductor, I think something like WP:MUSICBIO , WP:COMPOSER , WP:NCREATIVE should be satisfied, possibly WP:BASIC .  It's likely most of the coverage will not be in English language here.  There's quite a bit of SIGCOV of his music direction for in this German De Gruyter book Die Interaktion zwischen Dirigent:in und Musiker:innen in Orchesterproben : [21] WP:COMPOSER / WP:MUSICBIO for various pieces including "Lady Walton's Garden" [22] [23] Tango Seasons [24] [25] Not sure on how independent this is, but there's a bio credited to a Cecilia Farinelli in the Barilla historical archive (yes that Barilla) [26] , also seems to be in one or more books put out by that company [27] — siro χ o 08:29, 10 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!  01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources above seem ok, I'd incorporate them into the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 17 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: keep
2028 ICC Men's T20 World Cup: 8 years away that is not a mega event like the Olympics Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  2028 is just four years away despite what the nominator may think.  Lean keep even I, from Poland, have heard of the Twenty20, so perhaps not at all too soon, as there is room for expansion as qualifications are probably starting next year, right?  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Haha yes, my bad 4 years away not 8.  Not sure why my brain thought we are still in 2020.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] True it is just 4 years away, but considering there is going to be another T20 World cup in 2026 there wont be any announcements about qualification anytime soon Cric editor ( talk ) 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad.  4 years away not 8.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Only 4 years away and certain to happen.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's little point deleting this - it will only be re-created, probably within days.  If there's a real desire for it to not exist for now, a redirection is the better option (as has been done for the 2030 version of this) but then someone will need to pay whack-a-mole with it.  I would never like to guarantee that anything in cricket will definitely happen, given the history of tournaments in the game, but this seems reasonable to keep around for now.  Redirect is the worst that should happen.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Four years is not too soon.  If it was 2032, that would be.  Batagur baska ( talk ) 02:02, 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: keep
Guido Moerkotte: - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Computing ,  and Germany .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it does not.  It passes multiple WP:NPROF criteria (at least #1 and #5).  He is holding his own chair at university of Mannheim, which equals a distinguished professor.  This is also mentioned in the article.  So please remove the nomination for deletion or be more precise.  MaxEmanuel ( talk ) 13:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Pass of WP:Prof#C1 .  Having said that, the BLP is very poorly written.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .   Passes NPROF#1 with an h-index of 44 and 19 papers with 100+ citations.  -- hroest 21:48, 31 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: keep
List of the busiest airports in Iran: Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Transportation , Lists ,  and Iran .  Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment note that about all pages in Category:Lists of busiest airports have this structure.  Maybe a broader discussion is needed to determine if all these articles should be deleted or kept?  82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 10:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NOTSTATS require context, which this article somewhat lacks but can be easily provided, and these are statistics which would have been provided in an almanac 30 years ago even if not necessarily for Iran.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sort of context would overcome the NOTSTATS violation?  Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Sportingflyer.  Orientls ( talk ) 04:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'd say that enplanements could be added to List of airports in Iran like List of airports in Washington (state) , but I see no reason for this list to be singled out among the many in the category.  These are perfectly valid statistics to compile, and while the article could be improved with prose context, I don't see the issues of "reduce readability", "may be confusing", or "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" that are the basis of NOTSTATS.  Here, we see "the statistics can be split into a separate article" in practice, and List of airports in Iran or even Transport_in_Iran#Airports_and_airlines could include recommended summarization.  While some pages that are primarily statistics may focus on too narrow a topic for encyclopedic significance or at least a stand-alone article, this is generally considered relevant and sources like [40] [41] [42] [43] show some media interest.  Reywas92 Talk 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that basically repeat the raw data from the Iranian Airports Company, so WP:SIGCOV is not met.  The MEED source does provide some analysis, but it's only discussing the statistics from April 2016 to January 2017.  Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not about Iranian Airports Company , so we don't have to have sources independent of the Iranian Airports Company.  There's nothing wrong with using primary news sources, they just have to be used with appropriate care to avoid bias or original research.  Reywas92 Talk 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that primary sources are fine for basic facts like the individual statistics, but per SIGCOV we need independent secondary sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, i.e. that it deserves its own article.  Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:23, 20 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
Scott Neslin: The two references are both career summaries that read like resumes.  After searching, unable to find independent sources with coverage of this person.  Article created on 22 April 2017.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Economics ,  and New Hampshire .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft to provide an opportunity for sources to be developed.  BD2412 T 18:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The subject holds the "Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing" at an Ivy League school.  He's got 8,000 citations, 25 papers with 100+ citations on Scopus, and an h -index of 42.  Clear pass of NPROF.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I didn't find the book reviews that might pass WP:AUTHOR , but I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 and #C5 is clear.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:26, 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: keep
Linda Douma: Falls into WP:BIO1E Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Canada .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic "Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E", etc. I challenge both reasons.  From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [48] [49] , which are two recent books published by UBC Press .  Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement.  Materialscientist ( talk ) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources.  This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had.  If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources.  Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Hate to do the standard "per x" thing response, but in this case I have to ! vote like that.  Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage.  She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books.  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 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: keep
Costa Mesa Police Department: GameOfAwesome ( talk ) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails GNG and NCORP.  All the source material I could find was ROUTINE (police activity in the news, complaints against the police), as this article relies on the subject's website.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is a major police department.  It is notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A search turned up a racial profiling incident ( here and here ) which seems to pass WP:ORGCRIT : A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  In addition to those, we can also add this trivial mention .  Putting aside for the moment all of the primary sources cited, we can also add to the above a few other references already present in the article, such as this (trivial) and this one that does go into some detail about statistics.  Stony Brook babble 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I added text to the article (under History section) about the racial profiling incident.  @ StonyBrook - thank you for the sources for that.  Let's keep the article up.  - Hannahthom7 ( talk ) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Reasonably large police department and no rationale given for deletion in any case.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 25 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: keep
Mayang Sari Beach Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage.  Uhooep ( talk ) 08:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no independent source provided.  Neocorelight ( Talk ) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pulling out my ! vote because WP:HEY .  I have no opinion now.  Neocorelight ( Talk ) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal Keep .  I pumped the article up a bit.  There are plenty of sources, including various books, unfortunately mostly just in snippet view.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable beach resort...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 17 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
Yorkshire Men's League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is one of the stronger, more notable regional leagues, and a couple of its clubs have recently made (ambitious) applications to join the professional ranks ( [6] , [7] ).  TNT is meant as a last resort and I don't think it should apply here.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:31, 18 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: keep
CHCO-TV: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article does need improvement, certainly, but it is a CRTC -licensed television station that fulfills WP:BCAST criteria, and improved sourcing does exist to repair it with.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Bearcat .  B3251 ( talk ) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - some references including https://www.proquest.com/docview/2428323466/C1410E9C3340ECPQ/12 , https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/chco-tv-feeling-the-impacts-of-meta-ban-on-canadian-news-content-1.6533894 , https://www.country94.ca/2023/04/19/telethon-raises-55k-for-iconic-grand-manan-lighthouse/ to support for inclusion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:17, 31 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: keep
Jordan Graham (footballer, born 1997): There is another Jordan Graham (ex Wolves/Birmingham) just to confuse matters while searching.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Although pretty much run of the mill WP:ROUTINE coverage.  I feel he has played enough and done enough for an article.  There is enough to build a picture for me.  Govvy ( talk ) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability.  Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  02:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , Per Govvy.  I found [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , and [32] , among many more sources.  Player with fully pro experience and ongoing career.  Article needs improvement, not deletiom.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First 4 are OK, last one is from his club so not SIGCOV.  Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source one is his manager being quoted about JG's cartilage injury and contains no independent coverage of Graham.  Source 2 has 3 sentences of independent coverage and quotes taken from mansfieldtown.net.  Source 3 has one sentence of independent coverage and source 4 has the same info on him as source 3.  Stop making N:FOOTBALL arguments as well as "on going career" ones as people require to be notable now not at some time in the future.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:01, 23 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
A Choice of Magic: A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBOOK .  Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972 , The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly ).  There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  14:06, 15 December 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!  02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG.  — siro χ o 03:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Isobell Shyrie: Not seeing GNG met, nor NBIO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Magic ,  and Scotland .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there appears to be some variation in spelling for her name.  Found some sources for Isobel (single L) Shyrie - [4] [5] [6] .  Also some for  "Issobell Syrie" (gaelic?) [7] .  Makes for a weak-ish case for WP:GNG.  Maybe better to merge/redirect to Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661–62 . - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : have added refs which show her as one of Guthrie's alleged colleagues.  Pam D 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep She comes under WP:VICTIM and given the amount of scholarly work going on at present about Scottish witchcraft, it would be premature to delete.  MsJoat ( talk ) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the sources are reliable 1 , 2 , 3 Charsaddian ( talk ) 19:54, 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: keep