hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gumbi Ortiz: Essentially no coverage in reliable, independent sources online aside from an All About Jazz article.  Meets no other notability criteria.  Obviously created for undisclosed payments (see User_talk:WikiDMM ).  Clear friend a 💬 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Florida ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Found this source from the TB times [3] .  Also, All About Jazz profiles are typically self-published, as this one appears to be, so that doesn't count towards notability.  Mach61 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per this Orlando Sentinel article .  Mach61 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - this is truly a marginal case.  There's at least some evidence of some coverage (per Mach61 ), but he has surprisingly few followers on social media such as Instagram.  So I'm not ! voting.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:05, 8 May 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!  21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as well as the Tampa Bay Times and Orlando Sentinel articles linked in this discussion there is also an album review here so that in total there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Right now, this is either a Relist or No consensus so I'm choosing another relist to see what other editors' opinions on it are.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep RS with in-depth coverage added.  - Altenmann >talk 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep notable musician with a significant career, having worked with renowned artists and contributed to various music projects.  However, the article needs more reliable sources and detailed information-- Assirian cat ( talk ) 08:29, 17 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
Tall Hajar, Jarabulus: A village I doubt that few outside Syria have heard of before.  There is nothing noticeable about it in the news and the secondary sources that we rely on in the first place.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  According to WP:GEOLAND , Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.  There are thousands of pages for villages in Wikipedia; whether anyone from a different part of the world has heard of it is totally irrelevant.  Aintabli ( talk ) 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Syria .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article passes WP:GEOLAND because it is a populated place.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 06:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no valid deletion rationale.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep All populated places are notable per WP:GEOLAND .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:31, 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
Horse Creek, Wyoming: And about that: if you search by town name, it does indeed give that zip code, but then says, "This ZIP Code™ used for a specific PO BOX".  I couldn't find an explanation of this, but it suggests that the now-single-property picks up its mail somewhere else.  I'm not seeing the GEO-notability.  Mangoe ( talk ) 01:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note also that there are a lot of things named "Horse Creek" around, including multiple creeks.  Mangoe ( talk ) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a tiny community, but it's a community, and it got newspaper coverage in 1989 when a couple from North Carolina bought the entire town: see [61] , [62] , and [63] .  This article seems to explain the post office situation; apparently the physical post office was closed in the early 2010s because of an emergency operational issue.  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   See WP:GEOLAND for example.   Even if it's just a single property now, it wasn't in the past; it was a real community, and notability isn't temporary, or we might delete articles on no-longer-extant entities like Roman Empire and Soviet Union .  Nyttend ( talk ) 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GEOLAND with the previous sources above.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there are sources such as the ones cited above that indicate that the article passes WP:GEOLAND .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per sources above and WP:GAZ .  Can't find many more substantial sources on Newspapers.com, but it certainly existed as a small community in decades past.  AviationFreak 💬 05:41, 17 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
CSA Provincial T20 Challenge: Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Main domestic T20 competition in South Africa, plenty of coverage in simple searches under T20 Challenge, Betway T20 Challenge etc.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Main domestic T20 tournament of a full member of the ICC.  Plenty of coverage.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Major cricket tournament, lots of coverage.  It’s gone on for years under different names.  Park3r ( talk ) 21:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Enumeration and analysis of the reference material available would be much more helpful than just asserting that it exists.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the keep votes above clearly state that sources can be found by searching for each of the tournament’s previous names.  Here’s some Google searches that return a large number of hits: “standard bank pro 20 iol”,  “standard bank pro 20 timeslive” “t20 miwway  iol” etc.  I’m  not sure why a nomination that seems to have been done without a thorough WP:BEFORE places a further burden on editors who vote keep.  Park3r ( talk ) 21:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems a clear keep to me - there will be tonnes of offline newspaper coverage for starters.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:16, 27 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
Euryops (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete with only two topics, can be handled directly with a hatnote.  Keep improvements show it is a useful page.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep has more than one topic, before being removed.  WP:REDYES and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES show that just because there are links that are red on enwiki does not mean they should not be written.  -- awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you ever read WP:REDDAB ?  The entries of red link must be validated per MOS:DABRED , i.e. the inclusion of a linked article.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : have linked the gastropod by a redirect.  The "see also"s should be covered by adding "Euryops" to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names , if someone cares to do so.  Pam D 09:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, have made that entry and cleaned up the dab page, including merging two Wikidata entries for the son of Heracles at "Euryops" and "Euryopes".  Pam D 12:39, 27 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
List of tallest buildings in Hyderabad: Not one of the list entries is notable and the article is largely unsourced except for the top 2 entries of the list.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Lists ,  and Telangana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to meet NLIST, with coverage of the collection of tall buildings in this city existing, eg [49] [50] .  Note that NLIST says The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.  .  The current article does, however, need some more sources.  — siro χ o 09:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Lists of the tallest buildings in major cities are certainly notable per WP:NLIST .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Necrothesp .  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:19, 22 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
Barokk Hotel Promenád Győr: Boleyn ( talk ) 17:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Travel and tourism ,  and Hungary .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOFEAT .  The building appears to be heritage listed .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination Necrothesp is absolutely right.  Thanks, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:10, 27 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
Essex Arms: JMWt ( talk ) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Found reviews from The Quietus , DIY , and AllMusic.  That's plenty enough already.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the reviews found by QuietHere and since added to the article.  The article could use some expansion but there are enough pro reviews to support a typical stub album article.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 01:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the reviews that QuietHere found; sources found and used should be enough for at least a stub/start-class article.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 03:25, 16 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
Santiago López (soccer, born 2005): EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The article seems to have enough WP:SIGCOV .  These two sources have in-depth coverage [1] , [2] I also found this one: [3] .  Svartner ( talk ) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject easily meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —Easy keep.  Easily meets WP:SIGCOV per Svartner's post above and those found in the article itself.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV .  ADifferentMan ( talk ) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly passes GNG.  I suggest this is a POINTy nomination, given the OP's behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matias Fernandez-Pardo shortly before this nomination.  Giant Snowman 09:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject has multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV already in the article to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - when an article is already well sourced like this, I would expect a source analysis with a clear explanation as to why each source doesn't satisfy SIGCOV requirements if wishing to pursue deletion.  The ones highlighted by Svartner look good enough to me.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 15 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
Carmina Slovenica: Sadads ( talk ) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Sadads ( talk ) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Add the references that already appear in the Slovenian Wikipedia's article at https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Slovenica "With limited English-language interest" is never a valid reason for deletion.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain -- the sources on sl Wikipedia appear to be passing mentions or self-promotional -- they don't meet the criteria of significant coverage, beyond the normal treatment of a choir performing in a local context, Sadads ( talk ) 11:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Eastmain.  Just needs writing and sourcing.  Surprised to see this from somebody as resourceful as Sadads. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dr. Blofeld The standard is higher for performance groups than "it has a few sources", per Wikipedia:BAND -- the current article doesn't make the case for notability, Sadads ( talk ) 11:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage is there though, this New York Times article talks about its 2015 production "Toxic Psalms".  An extensive article on the Slovenian culture website here .  Cambridge Companion of Choral Music mentions it on page 207 but I can't access it.  Plenty more hits in google books and I'm sure there'll be numerous reviews in other newspapers.  It just needed cleanup of the cruft, writing and sourcing.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Slwiki also offers multiple sources that were published by mainstream reliable media A09 ( talk ) 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Dr. Blofeld.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well referenced now, and clearly notable.  The potentisl should have shown up on the pre-nomination search.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not only "limited English sources" is not a valid argument, it's also false that slwiki has promotional sources.  5/6 sources are from mainstream Slovene media companies.  A09 ( talk ) 14:22, 12 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
Lorin Ranier: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But he’s a team owner with a storied history in the sport?  I understand your take on the matter absolutely but he’s the key figure to 2 of the top development programs in stock car racing currently and is a team owner, what’s the difference in him and other team owners with wiki pages?  He just happens to not currently own a team, and if most crew chiefs like Chris Gabehart can have Wikipedia pages I see no reason a team owner can’t have one also, thank you for your time.  OlHossNo.13 ( talk ) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG .  He's been covered in the Courier Journal , The Roanoke Times , the Knight Ridder Tribune , Bristol Herald Courier , and there was a Ranier Racing Museum covered in the Associated Press.  APK whisper in my ear 05:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions .  Kpg jhp jm 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this discussion and whether they are sufficient to establish GNG for this article subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable per refs found above.  For the future, NASCAR team owners are probably always notable given the coverage of teams and drivers.  I see stuff about them weekly.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Cumberland 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 ) 19:03, 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 19:23, 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× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I would suggest that the nominator strike through the "Delete" in their update to keep from giving the impression it is a fresh ! vote.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This league is now known as the "Iggesund Cumberland ARL".  Article needs improving, but there appears to be quite a bit of coverage available on TotalRL and various Cumbrian news websites [5] [6] [7] .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Following suggested redirects to this page and the given sources above: Keep and rename to "Cumbria Rugby League" per RFL website.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:11, 19 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