hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dipak Sharma: There's no way that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia.  Expressive101 ( talk ) 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There seem to be at least three references containing sufficient assessment work by the authors for them to be counted as "secondary" and which contain enough for a brief article.  [16] [17] [18] The apparant reference bombing is due to the detailed referencing for the excessive lists of awards, etc.  Thincat ( talk ) 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable person.  Citadeol (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Sources like Online Khabar, Annapurna post, Himalaya times, Image Khabar is a reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject.  Fade258 ( talk ) 10:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are a lot of sources.  It can be considered significant. -- Jasulan . T TT me 14:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , subject has been making the news for quite some time, therefore has a credible claim to notability.  ihateneo ( talk ) 01:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:48, 23 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
Database of Recorded American Music: I am unable to find anywhere near the depth of sourcing required for N:ORG which appears to be the best barometer for this database.  Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Museums and libraries , Organizations ,  and Software .  Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Has many independent reviews in journals, see [1] [2] [3] Mach61 ( talk ) 02:24, 16 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!  22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the nom doesn't make sense, notability does not degrade over time .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 16:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe he was referring to modifications of WP:NORG Mach61 ( talk ) 18:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Added some sources.   A simple Google search of "Database of Recorded American Music" brings up oodles of university sites that provide access to this database.  There's no doubt this is notable.  The link I added from The Recording Industry Association of America® (RIAA) has a pretty impressive graph of 1973-2022 sales.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:16, 30 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
Professional support lawyer: CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge somewhere .  It seems noteworthy, if not independently encyclopedically notable, that some lawyers have this internal research support role.  Perhaps this can find a home in Law firm#Structure and promotion .  BD2412 T 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BD2412 , Fad Ariff ,  and Onel5969 : can I ask you all to take another look?  I reworked the article.  Lightburst ( talk ) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a merge, though I admit I wasn't sure a good target.  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the additional sources were used to expand the article, and included therein, I wouldn't be upset in keeping the article.  Onel 5969 TT me 23:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I would agree with a merge if the article had better sourcing and was better written.  Until then, I'm leaning towards a delete or draftify.  Fad Ariff ( talk ) 12:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Lightburst ( talk ) 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria.  Onel 5969 TT me 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Onel5969 : I see sources which can be used in the article.  The Law Society Gazette , Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer , A Handbook for Corporate Information Professionals , The Knowledge Manager's Handbook , Kirsty McFarlane: Why professional support lawyers are growing in importance Lightburst ( talk ) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Lightburst.  The article is currently in poor shape, so hopefully someone will overhaul it if it is kept.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources found by Lightburst are sufficient for GNG.  WJ94 ( talk ) 13:55, 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
List of countries by southernmost point: List of countries by northernmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of countries by easternmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of countries by westernmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Traumnovelle ( talk ) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There do not seem to be any sources cited for the co-ordinate locations in any of the articles.  However, I think the article itself should not be deleted.  The concept of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of a country or region is definitely a notable subject, and the concept of compiling and comparing different extreme points in a list should also therefore be notable.  Are not some of these locations/points only notable because they are the extreme points of that location?  Are you going to delete Extreme points of Africa and other articles at the same time?  Spiralwidget ( talk ) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My argument applies exactly to that one, so yes?  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep all .  I agree with Spiralwidget that extremes of latitude and longitude are notable, and therefore listworthy.  BD2412 T 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Assuming that the sourcing can be coughed up, this could just as well exist as a single article with the four extreme points of each country, sortable by each column (NESW).  It would not surprise me to learn that there is already a list of countries which contains the information, or for that matter a list of countries by some geographical property to which these data could be added (e.g. a list ranked by area).  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Extreme points are a topic covered by some sources, if only in a fun trivia way.  Agree with above though that four sortable columns in a single table is likely a better format.  List of countries by extreme points , like Extreme points of the European Union / Extreme points of the Commonwealth of Nations only hopefully more notable.  CMD ( talk ) 07:41, 23 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
Eastport, Idaho: There's only a few sources, and I feel that a couple of sentences can fit in the border crossing rather than being placed in an article that feels like a stub with nothing interesting or pleasing to the reader.  NoobThreePointOh ( talk ) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See historic images here .  See this United States government report: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/pnp/habshaer/id/id0100/id0128/data/id0128data.pdf More coverage of Eastport: https://bonnersferryherald.com/search/vertical/news.story/? q=Eastport From Medium.com: https://medium.com/@cheri_28877/canadian-border-crossing-eastport-idaho-69df61947348 Also, https://boundary.idgenweb.org/history/post/eastport-idaho Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Note that WP:MEDIUM is generally considered unreliable.  No comment on the other sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge/expand The issue here is really that now the border crossing has basically co-opted the town.  I think the latter makes the most sense as a section within the crossing article rather than as a separate article.  Also, I have to point out that the only "good" source here, that is, the only one that has content which could be used as the basis for writing  article text, is not likely to cut the mustard as a reliable source, given the lack of authorship info and citations.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the proposed redirection, I feel it will make the page more useful.  24vikie ( talk ) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG per Eastmain.  ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 13:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Eastmain; lots of newspaper coverage as well [54] [55] .  AviationFreak 💬 03:55, 15 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
James Loxton: I am not seeing anything to indicate he passes WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG , with the only coverage being either signing info, match reports, and stats pages.  Primefac ( talk ) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , Germany , Ireland , United Kingdom ,  and Wales .  Primefac ( talk ) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  My own WP:BEFORE has thrown up quite a bit of coverage of the eligibility debate (between the WRU, IRFU and IRB) which is at least contributory under a form of WP:LASTING .  I've updated the article with the refs/etc.  Not cut-and-dried (hence "weak keep").  But, when in a grey area, I'd lean towards a keep...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'd go keep on this one given what Guliolopez has been able to find.  Seems to be enough there (albeit just) for the article to be kept.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Guliolopez found a good amount of coverage, particularly due to the IRB eligibility situation.  RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 13:40, 30 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
Jaroslav Kopřiva: (NAC Bobsleigh & Skeleton) in Park City.  However, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage.  The closest references I found about him are Ref 1 and Ref 2 .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Czech Republic .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I expanded the page and I think it is enough to pass GNG.  FromCzech ( talk ) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the very helpful and appreciated expansion by User:FromCzech .  -- Habst ( talk ) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sources added during this discussion establish notability.  C 679 16:43, 24 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
Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk: Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected.  I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland .  I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can somebody check Swedish media for notability?  Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article.  -1ctinus📝 🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions .  / Julle ( talk ) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable.  Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year.  It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on.  I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour.  My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together.  The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album.  I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources.  / Julle ( talk ) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Removed Finland from the deletion sorting.  Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden?  Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken.  / Julle ( talk ) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - From the research I have done, the sourcing mostly is within WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.  Julle’s assessments above are correct as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 06:11, 2 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
Maxime Stefani: The most that came up were interviews ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and France .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - French professional footballer.  Full France international, played for France B, member of the World Cup squad.  Over 100 club appearances.  12 sources in place to back this up.  Fleets ( talk ) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey there.  Nice work digging these up.  If you or anyone else could present a source with a similar amount of coverage to Source #6, I would happily withdraw the nomination.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : World Cup player with 8 refs.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The new sources added to the article show sufficient coverage to pass SPORTCRIT.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:37, 23 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
Gerhana Skacinta: I would PROD but an IP just started editing it again (which is why I remembered it existed) and would likely be a waste of time.  Primefac ( talk ) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Malaysia .  Primefac ( talk ) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per this Malay Mail article , which calls them the most successful band that has come from the skinhead community in the history of Malaysian popular music , sufficient to pass WP:BAND#C7 .  Moreover, the band has 62 total hits on ProQuest, and while it's likely that many of those are only brief mentions, it's enough to show that they're well known in the region, and that detailed Malay sources are likely to exist.  Mach61 14:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm the one who started the article.  "Non-notable" where?  There were popular and well known in Malaysia.  Are they now?  I don't know but that's not necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia has a policy of trying to include topics left out due to systemic bias and, "They were popular in Malaysia, but who cares about that???" is the kind of systemic bias we should be working against here.  I didn't add citations or sources when I started the stub: that was not common back then.  I might try to do that now, or others can help.  Interlingua ( talk ) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Also some coverage in NME (which is considered a RS): [4] , lesser coverage here [5] Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:39, 17 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
Christmas Next Door: Everything is either routine coverage or blog reviews.  Should be deleted as non-notable, or a redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies .  Was previously PROD'd.  Donald D23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  What is currently on the page seems enough.  There is at least also this in Romper . — MY, OH, MY !  12:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a one-click search also gives this , and this ...— MY, OH, MY !  14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Movie Scene may be considered reliable, but the other one is clearly a blog, which fails WP:RS as it is WP:USERGENERATED .  Donald D23 talk to me 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok.  But Romper , see 1st line of my comment, is not a blog, Is it?  — MY, OH, MY !  22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) (actually it was already on the page, I had missed it. But large audience + at least 2 sources seem to be enough) [ reply ] I concur that Romper is a RS.  Donald D23 talk to me 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It was already kept once [4] .  Kirill C1 ( talk ) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone removing a PROD with the rationale that it "may be notable" is not a valid keep reason.  Sources proving notability must be provided, not an opinion that it is notable.  Donald D23 talk to me 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, actually, that's not what WP:NEXIST says.  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that sources MAY exist, but nothing has be provided.  We don't keep based on MAYBE.  Sources don't need to be added, but they need to exist.  Nothing has been added except blog reviews, and just saying "keep" based on those blog reviews will not suffice.  Sources must be RELIABLE, meaning oversight.  There is zero oversight on a personal blog.  Donald D23 talk to me 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources in article do seem sufficient, and those presented above seal the deal.  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources in the article are blogs.  Out of the 2 listed by Kirill, only the Movie Scene can be considered reliable.The other one...yep, another blog.  Donald D23 talk to me 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am convinced with there being at least 2 RS reviews that this film passes WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 11:32, 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