hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Place of Peace: glman ( talk ) 22:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and South Carolina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I think references 1, 2, and 5 are significant secondary coverage.   The article does need a lot of work since many of the other references are primary and/or irrelevant.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1 is good, I agree.  2 is a passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV - "The family, including Tsuzuki’s children Yuri and Seiji, was also responsible for the creation of Place of Peace at Furman University." 5 is a list, it's better than two, but still a trivial mention.  I don't think this meets WP:GNG.  glman ( talk ) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- In addition to what's already in the article this piece from The Chronicle of Higher Ed shows that it meets GNG.  [8] Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this article, a bit a of an absurd nomination.  In addition to coverage noted by previous keep votes, there's an AP article [9] which was syndicated as far away as California & a reworked version of which appeared in the Japan Times [10] .  Also passing coverage in Forbes as a key part of naming the college campus one of the most beautiful in America [11] .  DCsansei ( talk ) 15:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:45, 7 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
WBEM (AM): Unlikely that a tiny AM station ever got the kind of coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG but I await with interest others showing me how I'm wrong.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania .  JMWt ( talk ) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete ; fails WP:GNG .  - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Toughie because the location does not have full-scan newspaper, but I have scraped about five sources.  There is stuff that is quite mushy and SYNTHy.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep .  Sammi Brie's sources seem to provide SIGCOV of the topic when considering the alternate call signs and ownership.  — siro χ o 18:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Of the sources added to the article there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles to meet the GNG.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:42, 16 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
Begbroke Science Park: Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Oxford University , but could unbalance that article.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are over 200 direct hits for the subject in the Oxford Mail alone, see [6] , with articles such as this one featuring usable coverage: Fifteen years of Begbroke Science Park .  Resonant Dis tor tion 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there is extensive reporting available as noted above.  Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Perhaps this article could be used for expansion?  https://www.costar.com/article/270065868/oxford-university-and-lgim-lodge-plans-for-giant-innovation-district-and-village Oliver Phile ( talk ) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wcquidditch.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:56, 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
Global Legal Information Network: JMWt ( talk ) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - GLIN is under the umbrella of, but separate from, the LoC and has independent notability.  For my WP:THREE , I'd probably start with [15] , [16] and maybe either the NASA one about its development ( [17] which is independently cool in and of itself) or The Futurist ( [18] ).  That said, the article is in desperate need of a loving editor (not exactly thick on the ground since you won't find a drier subject), but WP:DINC .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Commentary on the sources would be great :) Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sohom ( talk ) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep as sufficiently sourceable and notable, per User:Last1in .  BD2412 T 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets GNG with sources listed above by Last1in, especially The IALL International Handbook of Legal Information Management and The Futurist .  The Law Library Journal piece is a good third source, though a bit shorter on coverage afaict.  I am not confident the NASA/Maryland source is independent, but I might be misunderstanding Kalpakis' role.    — siro χ o 19:13, 11 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
財閥: However, it's actually a WP:2DABS and Chaebol seems to be the primary topic with respect to usage per pageviews .  Thus this dab page should be replaced by a primary redirect to Chaebol with a hatnote on its top per WP:ONEOTHER , just like that of 文 .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations , Japan ,  and Korea .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zaibatsu is an essential topic in Japanese history and economics, just as Chaebol is an important topic in Korean history and economics.  Pageviews for each article do not necessarily mean that there is a primary topic for a redirect, and here both articles have substantial page views, and there is no evidence that English-language readers want the page on the Korean topic when using the Chinese characters.  (While both are likely vanishingly rare among English-language users, zaibatsu is the term more likely to be written in Chinese characters.)  This does not really seem like a deletion discussion, but I would both keep the disambiguation page and oppose redirecting to the Korean term.  Also, note that this differs from the case of 文 where the reasoning was " primary meaning of the character is the character "; this is a compound, not a single character.  Dekimasu よ!  06:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note as well that there is the option to expand the disambiguation page if needed, which could be a simpler solution.  It may not help users too much, but the meaning of 財閥 can be taken to include other topics like the Vanderbilt family or Rockefeller family .  Dekimasu よ!  06:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't mean that Chaebol is primary in the same aspect as Radical 67 , but simply use 文 (disambiguation) as a precedence for a CJKV dab page with a redirect as the primary topic.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:49, 11 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
Nokia 6700 slide: Merge/redirect to Nokia would give undue relevance in that article.  Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep TechRadar CNET Softpedia ~ A412 talk!  17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have added the sources given and expanded the article a little bit.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the RS, the article does need cleanup so I will do a bit of copyediting.  Lightburst ( talk ) 03:13, 18 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
Hwang Jae-won (footballer, born 2002): No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   Sources are just database entries.   This is reflect in the prose of the article which is one sentence saying that he plays football and who for.  North8000 ( talk ) 03:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources : I found this article by SPOTV , and this article published by the league he plays for and was republished by OneFootball .  There's also these two Korean-language sources from the French Wikipedia article.  Left guide ( talk ) 07:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which (I think) show notability.  Young player with 60+ appearances as a professional in Korea, with ongoing career.  Clearly notable.  Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as Left guide's comment shows there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Quality of the article right now is poor but it needs improvement not deleting.  Inter&anthro ( talk ) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sourcing above, which appears to satisfy WP:GNG .  Left guide ( talk ) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Young player with sources with ongoing career in fully pro Korean league.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:10, 26 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
Hedras Ramos: He doesn't have significant coverage.  Johnmarrys talk 15:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Guatemala .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I found the below sources that are not included in the article: https://guatemaltecosilustres.com/archivo/artistica/hedras-ramos-3/ https://mundochapin.com/2018/04/hedras-ramos-y-su-pasion-por-la-guitarra/59649/amp/ https://www.cortguitars.com/cortBBS/board.php? bo_table=Artists&wr_id=165 https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/llevo-dentro-responsabilidad_0_551344886-html/ https://www.perspectiva.gt/uncategorized/super-cola-reconoce-y-apoya-el-talento-de-hedras-ramos/ I'll try to update the article once I'm able to edit from my computer (my residential IP is currently blocked and working on articles from the phone is rather complicated).  – FlyingAce ✈hello 18:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week Keep .  I think we have WP:BASIC but the language difference makes it hard to be 100% sure.  The text of one of the above user's sources (perspectiva) seems independent of the subject , it's about a corporate sponsorshpi thing, but I do not think the article is sponsored.  I found some non-interview with a byline from Siglo Veintiuno on ProQuest about a collaboration with Christopher Lee .  There's several shorter non-trivial mentions as well that may contribute to BASIC, eg [66] and a similar note in Telegraph.co.ok via ProQuest.   — siro χ o 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He is notable enough in his community, which this page caters for.  Amaekuma ( talk ) 19:00, 19 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
Doug Sandom: He was replaced long before the band became notable and did not do anything significant afterwards.  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems notable to me: obituaries in The Times and The Daily Telegraph also other coverage, for example Daily Express and Doug’s happy to have made his Detour from The Who Piecesofuk ( talk ) 13:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Being an early member of a band IS notable if he has been described as such in every imaginable biography of The Who from reliable journalists and authors.  Sandom is regularly described as playing a noteworthy role in the band's early days.  A Google Books search leads to dozens of reliable results.  This nomination shows little knowledge of The Who's history, which is okay as everyone starts somewhere; but it also shows a disregard of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST , which is not okay.  The article needs expansion, not deletion, and expansion should be fairly easy.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 19:37, 20 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
Blackpool Council: Maybe it be best to be merged given the borough article covers the council as well?  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crouch, Swale : , @ Eopsid : , @ PamD : and any other editors, might wish to comment on this?  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Category confusion.  A borough is a geographic place and a council is a legislature and executive.  The council is notable in its own right.  Borough of Blackpool / Blackpool might be suitable for a merger, but if there are places in the borough that are not considered 'part of Blackpool' then maybe not.  MRSC ( talk ) 17:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - No deletion rationale.  The nom.'s argument is for merge so this should be a merge proposal (in any case, it should not be merged per MRSC).  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Borough of Blackpool while its a unitary district council which is technically like a county council in reality it readers aren't likely to be aware of the difference between the district and council so it makes more sense to cover it in the district like Hartlepool Borough Council per WP:UKDISTRICTS .  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per MRSC: The article is perfunctory at best, but the local authority and the district are two different things.  Flip Format ( talk ) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : as others have said, a council is a governing body, a borough is a place, they are different.  Nothing to gain by combining the articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD ( talk • contribs ) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep conflation error, two totally different, albeit related, subjects both of which are notable per se.  Regards,  -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Potential merges are discussed on article Talk pages not at AfD, though to be fair may get more input here.  In any case, as has been mentioned, the Council is distinct from the borough it governs and notable in its own right.  Bound to be sources discussing previous elections and policy, notwithstanding what little is included in the article.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:56, 1 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
Kodi Medeiros: Nearly all sources are trivial mentions of transactions or statistics; Wikipedia is not a baseball fansite (where an article like this might belong).  Anonymous Contributor 012786 ( talk ) 10:21, 21 November 2023 (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/2023 November 21 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and Hawaii .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject has multiple GNG level sources already referenced in the article.  Just because the subject never made the major leagues doesn't mean they aren't notable.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Literally the first source is enough for notability.  It talks about him directly, then we trace his career through the sport.  The rest given is fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:09, 21 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
Uptown Scottsbluff: While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid.  Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer.  Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Organizations , Companies ,  and Nebraska .  Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP : Omaha World-Herald , Star-Herald , and two KNEB sources: [81] , [82] .  (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.)  I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well.  (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.)  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Flagging comment from TPH located here .  They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer.  Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Enough sources to justify keeping the article.  There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources.  Esw01407 ( talk ) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:40, 21 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