hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dalleth : Boleyn ( talk ) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Organizations ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no sources and none when I search.  Not notable— Iadmc ♫ talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Have added references.  Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced.  Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the work done by Tacyarg to improve the article, including adding multiple references.  Should be sufficient to presume notability for this historic support organisation.  Resonant Dis tor tion 07:54, 6 July 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
Marco V : I found two sources relating to his 20/20 project, but that's it.  Because of the limited scope of information I found in reliable sources, I believe this article fails WP:GNG .  Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as the German wikipedia article here shows charting singles and albums.  There is a brief AllMusic bio here but more is needed, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As in 2004, DJ Mag ranked him as the 16th top DJ in the world, and he remained in top 50 annually until 2009 .  DJ Mag is the most respected ranking for deejays.  As an EDM fan I have heard of him before, but don't know his music.  There are bunch of bios on many respected EDM sites about him.  Check: Beatport , Insomniac (major EDM promoters) , Resident Advisor , ALLMUSIC .  And here are some articles meathchronicle.ie , Colorising , Digital DJ Hub , Crossfadr , Deep House Amsterdam , Rave Jungle , We Rave You .  Pershkoviski ( talk ) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep seems enough coverage as given above to just pass the notability.  Being the top DJ as listed would be notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets WP:GNG per sources listed by User:Pershkoviski; several of these now added to the article.   Also meets WP:MUSICBIO #2: three singles top 40 hits in Dutch national charts and three singles in UK national charts.  Resonant Dis tor tion 19:13, 18 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
Shabbethai Panzieri : Nothing much else found, little reason to think this is a notable person other than presence in another encyclopedia.  JMWt ( talk ) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy .  JMWt ( talk ) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The encyclopedia entry is a good sign for notability, and it looks like it cites several non-English sources; at minimum those should be checked for coverage.  Having this much information on someone from the seventeenth century usually suggests notability, and it's not surprising that there aren't a ton of sources in English available online. — Moriwen ( talk ) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The fact that it's in the Jewish Encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability, as is inclusion in *any* reliable encyclopedia.  There is an entire wikiproject devoted to creating articles based on this sole criterion .  The fact that the encyclopedia is "very old" is the reddest of herrings.  After all, WP:NTEMP .  The linked JE article has plenty of sources, as Moriwen notes.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 23:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability is demonstrated based on the encyclopedia source provided.  It does not decline over time nor does the value of the "very old Jewish encyclopedia" as a source.  The article for Joseph Fiametta , which is interconnected with this one, provides an example of how additional sources should be added here.  Alansohn ( talk ) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Inclusion of a topic in a scholarly encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability.  Charles Matthews ( talk ) 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above, being in a known encyclopedia meets WP:GNG .  She was a fairy 02:57, 1 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
Snak the Ripper : I can't find anything beyond hyper-local sources that would support keeping this.  Not meeting general or musician notability guidelines.  Also, no new sources have turned up since the last nomination for AfD.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep (per last AfD),  subject charted on the Canadian Albums Chart with two different albums.  [26] Chart specifically listed at WP:GOODCHARTS .  Subject passes WP:MUSICBIO .  Mbdfar ( talk ) 02:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - GNG is met per my SA table made in the previous AfD, which took place just over 3 months prior to this.  Such a quick re-nomination with no new substantive argument for deletion is disruptive and patrolling admins should consider a procedural close as such.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't say yay or nay at this point since I haven't investigated the subject's notability yet.  This would be the third AfD this subject is facing with the first one receiving strong support for deletion, and the recreation closing with "no consensus".  An allegation of COI was made here and it is worth a look.  COI Noticeboard regarding Snak the Ripper .  Edit history and the discussion will reveal two obvious edit accounts showing strong indication of advocacy and public relations editing activity.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  I'm wondering what has changed in the past 3 months since the last AFD.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm genuinely surprised this doesn't pass WP:GNG more "clearly" (in the sense we have to debate this), but after review I think the sources available (a multitude of Canadian coverage from around the country at different time frames) still pass WP:GNG .  SportingFlyer T · C 21:16, 13 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
Laspur : Almost entirely unsourced since its creation in 2014, now only being maintained by sockpuppets.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After reverting the most recent sock addition, I have discovered that the article is supposed to be about a town, which presumptively meets WP:GNG .  I recommend using WP:ECP to prevent socks from editing the page.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  samee converse 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per LaundryPizza03 .  I've edited this article; one of the sources is a permanent dead link, but the other actually supports some of the content in the page.  The sockpuppetry is certainly tedious in the extreme, but not a valid reason for deletion; the protection applied by Daniel Case should help to limit that.  Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Did some looking and found an archived link by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), Government of Pakistan that still works and replaces the 'permanent dead link' mentioned above.  I have already added this link to this article.  Since it's an archived link, hopefully it won't go dead on us...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Though not altogether convinced Laspur is the name of the town — the sources in the article only confirm it's a council area.  Think the village/town is called Sor Laspur, with Laspur being the name of a valley and river as well as the council.  Still, the article could cover all these and Sor Laspur appears to be a legally recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND .  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
LFO scandal : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The nom did not bother do do WP:BEFORE , nor analyze the references (external links in this article, footnotes in the Polish article) - WP:TROUT is in order.  The article is underrefrenced, but the scandal was covered by Polish newspapers of note of that time.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable per refs in this article and the Polish version -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Don't forget BEFORE.C.3 and WP:ATD-T .  Thanks to Piotrus for tagging it now.  — siro χ o 18:38, 24 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
Tales of Aravorn: Seasons of the Wolf : The TechRaptor review is from early January 2015.  They have stated that "we had near-nonexistent editorial policies" until January 2015 and removed large amounts of content from 2013-16 that was low-quality, but this review might have been missed in the sweep.  RPGFan, a reliable source, has included it in several listicles that don't provide enough for notability.  QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Not all listicles are useless.  In this case, they're clearly not intended as clickbait and have genuine useful insights into games.  I think they are on par with the game getting a review from RPGFan.  It isn't the strongest sourcing but it does squeak past notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .   In general, if I was bringing a new article on a video game into the mainspace, I'd look for 3 solid sources, and if we grant the nominator's argument, we basically have two (RPGamer & Digitally Downloaded).   TechRaptor pre-2020 is indeed a weak source, but the review seems unobjectionable enough.   Basically, we have two-and-a-half good sources, and I don't think it's worth being a super stickler here.   It's a borderline notability topic, sure, but in general probably best to err on the side of keeping here.  SnowFire ( talk ) 04:06, 21 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
Lionel Mark Smith : The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The page needs improvement (with sources like this or this .  No lead roles and various minor roles but some significant roles in notable films, which makes him meet WP:NACTOR ("The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") in my view.  His performances have received some coverage (in the LAT) (or this in the NYT ) (that is not in-depth, but the guidelines does not require them for WP:NACTOR) The fact that he had his obituary in The Chicago Tribune , in Variety , in the LAT , and in the Hollywood Reporter seals the deal, I think. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (NB-Those sources have now been added to the page) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep due to Lionel Mark Smith's extensive filmography, including roles in films like "Galaxina" and "Homicide" and TV appearances on shows such as "Seinfeld" and "NYPD Blue," I see notability.  However, some sources should have been added, as one IMDB source doesn't help much.  Also, great "keep" comment above I agree with!  -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BoraVoro ; meets WP:NACTOR.  Owen× ☎ 00:38, 22 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
Nuzha Al-Ghussein : All of the article but a few sentence are unsourced.  May be WP:SELFPROMOTION Seawolf35 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Palestine .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The subject's name here is Nuzha Nuseibeh or Nuzha Nusseibeh , but the page is currently listed under the subject's maiden name, not her married and most commonly used name (as used for example, alongside her husband, in diplomatic records , or as president of the YWMA in Jerusalem , and as quoted in books ), so a WP:BEFORE search for sources under the actually more prevalent name for the individual is required.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: On the face of it, that the subject received the Order of Jerusalem is alone sufficient for WP:ANYBIO .  The subject's activism in politics and women's rights also makes it likely that more material is out there, quite possibly more in Arabic than in English given the geographies and time period involved.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article requires clean-up, more citations, and a more neutral tone, but she seems to be a relevant and impactful figure in mid-century Palestinian philanthropy.  Mistamystery ( talk ) 23:55, 22 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: keep
Fat Worm of Error : Boleyn ( talk ) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to sources already in the article, there's, for starters, [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] - plenty enough for WP:MUSIC bullet one, at minimum.  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This band is known in and foundational in the experimental music genre.  They are credited for influencing a wide swaths of bands of today include Guerrilla Toss, Aids Wolf, etc. ( https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2016/04/guttersnipe.html ) and is taught in jazz conservatory school.  I believe that this band is important to understanding noise and experimental music.  I believe bands like Caroliner also have the same level of reference and are seminal bands.  I believe FWOE is as deserving.  Based on the criteria for significance referenced ( WP:NBAND or WP:GNG , they meet the criteria of being on notable independent labels including Load, Ecstatic Peace, Feeding Tube , and more.  I did a quick web search for reference and found the following: They were # 20 on “Highest Rated Experimental Rock Albums of 2006” on All Music.  More links: interview , review in sputnik , Free Music , ADHD Weekly Listed shows in New York Times , The Stranger , ArtFuse Also, another criteria is members being in other notable bands.  Besides Deerhoof and Caroliner as mentioned in post, members are in bands such as Gloyd with Wendy Eisenberg, named "Best Experimental Music of 2024" by Bandcamp Daily, duo with Bill Nace, Buddies, and on RRR.  Poster with Deerhoof .  172.56.113.104 ( talk ) 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : plenty of coverage which passes notability criteria.  Article seems well referenced and a look online reveals plenty more sources.  InDimensional ( talk ) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as Pitchfork, Exclaim, AllMusic, The Skinny and others which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
CocoWalk : DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, the article is sparse at best but the actual place is a fairly significant shopping center in that area.  Skroob ( talk ) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Skroob ( talk • contribs )  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD .  [ reply ] For the article to exist for 18 years...there's really nothing significant stated on it.  – The Grid ( talk ) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the existense of sources that meet SIGCOV guidelines.  Here are links I could find of sources to satisfy this significant coverage requirement.  I am currently unable to add these to the article, but I will be sharing the links here.  https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/650904536 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/the-miami-herald-cocowalk-property-1984/69726780/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/656236427 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/657073065 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/635805980 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/642257530 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637566270 Burgeoning Contracting 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The contributions where I have synthesized information from the sources into the article.  Burgeoning Contracting 04:47, 9 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!  07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Excellent sleuthing, BurgeoningContracting .  Meets SIGCOV.  Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I do not agree that this article lacks significant coverage.  From my perspective, there are sufficient reliable sources to support what is written in the article.  ST7733B ( talk ) 23:46, 12 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