hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Abu Dhabi Knight Riders: Fails WP:NSPORT .  Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20 , or merge with Kolkata Knight Riders .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Arab Emirates .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The nominator appears not to understand that sources do not need to be present in the article for notability to be established.  Either that, or WP:BEFORE was not followed.  In any case, the subject easily passes WP:GNG .  [35] [36] [37] St Anselm ( talk ) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; Source 1 is just an a acquisition news.  Whereas, the sources 2 and 3 are all about the notability of an athlete (or a coach) that does not imply the notability of a team or club.  Ref: WP:NTEAM .  As I have said at the Gulf Giants ' AfD nomination -  I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH , respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON , though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY . Charlie ( talk ) 05:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cricket . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's almost certainly enough sourcing and I'm surprised that a tonne of detail hasn't already been added to the article. As it stands there's very little here and I'm not sure if anyone would notice if it were redirected. That might be an option in the future, but at AfD it's probably a keep based on sources existing Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 06:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : How is this even a thing? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plainly notable per sources. Desertarun ( talk ) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep For the reasons given above. Bs1jac ( talk ) 09:30, 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
Chitraloka.com: Extremely poor and superficial coverage, delete.  Tls9-me ( talk ) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  This article [39] is entirely about the website.  It may seem to mention the name Chitraloka a few times but ctrl-f Veeresh and the source tells the whole back story behind the website.  This website was the only website reporting the full details of the Kidnapping of Rajkumar in 2000 [40] .  Also, "the first website to be solely focused on Kannada cinema" gives unique notability.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Strong keep per DareshMohan.  This says it was one of only two websites giving frequent news about Kannada cinema in the early 2000s.  Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Websites , India ,  and Karnataka .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete article based on passing mentions and lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra : I added [41] , [42] [43] , which were fully about the website and removed the passing mentions.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping.  I’m a bit doubtful about how independent those pieces are but they are much more substantial coverage so I’ll strike my ! vote.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the additional references identified in this discussion that show significant coverage about the website, so that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:15, 29 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
Gulf Giants: Fails WP:NSPORT .  Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20 .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not sure what "fails WP:NSPORT " means in this context, because WP:NTEAM does not have any specific guidelines.  But there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] ), so this is an easy WP:GNG pass.  St Anselm ( talk ) 03:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; it seems like sources 1 , 2 , and 3 are just basic announcements and they don't provide a lot of detailed information.  Also, source 2 and 3 are from Hindustan Times which has a history of mirroring Wikipedia in the past.  In contrast, source number 4 originates from NDTV , a media network and team both affiliated with the Adani Group through ownership.  In general, I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH , respectively.  As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON , though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY .  Charlie ( talk ) 05:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've gone through and done some cleanup and tagged some sections.  There's clearly enough sourcing, although the article as it stands isn't as well sourced as it could be.  So, yes, it's a keep Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Following the improvements it's much better and as they play more, well get even better.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 08:07, 25 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
Fred Bronson: .  there are dead links. .  one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance.  This person is not mentioned anywhere.  The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago. .  I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article.  There is no fixing it.  Nominating for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 ( talk • contribs ) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be a rather prolific journalist/writer, you get many, many hits on columns in Billboard, Variety and a few books he's written, which are quoted by other stories, such as this [59] in American Songwriter.  More than likely as notable for being a senior writer at Billboard.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's also said to be a notable chart journalist in an NPR article.  [60] and his "Billboard Book of Number One Charts" seems to have gone through five editions since the 1980s [61] , implying it's widely used as a reference work.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , Music ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b above  & WP:JOURNALIST .1 — siro χ o 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b and WP:JOURNALIST points 1 (widely cited as noted above), 2 (noted for his apparently unique system for ranking songs by chart performance) and 3 (his book attracted mountains of reviews in its day and still occasionally nets a new one; and although not at all a scholarly book it somehow has 267 citations on Google Scholar).  I'm seeing 493 hits for "fred bronson" + billboard on newspapers.com alone, which vary between in-depth reviews of his book, quotes from or discussions of his Billboard column, and stories about his short-lived radio show.  Overall this fellow does not seem to have suffered from a shortage of influentiality.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Could use more sourcing, but Fred Bronson is pretty well known as a writer ( Hollywood Reporter author Fred Bronson ), multiple years of Billboard Number One Hits [( https://www.amazon.com/s?k=fred+bronson+the+billboard+book+of+number+one+hits&i=digital-text&crid=3KN96IYYWS6PF&sprefix=Fred+Bronson%2Cdigital-text%2C119&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_3_12 Amazon search (], Star Trek actor ( [62] ) etc. etc.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:51, 2 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
2023 Cambridge City Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements.  Onel 5969 TT me 13:13, 29 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) 13:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - How many of these are you trying to get deleted?  This is an election for the city council of whose jurisdiction includes one of the most prestigious universities in the world.  That alone passes notability requirements in my book.  Last year the results got significant coverage and I don't see any reason why they won't this year.  By all means request better sourcing but deletion is not the appropriate thing here.  Plus here is some in depth coverage from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65411680 Bentley4 ( talk ) 13:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is getting tedious.  How many other 2023 election pages are you trying to get deleted?  The consensus on the closed Wigan discussion was to keep, and on the still open Luton discussion you are the only one advocating deletion.  By all means mark the article as needing improvement, but deletion goes too far.  Stortford ( talk ) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If this election were a year in the future, then maybe I could see the TOOSOON argument, but right now, it's merely weeks away.  Why delete it when it will almost certainly be recreated in no time? -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - All Cambridge City Council elections from at least 2003 have articles on Wikipedia, and it is standard for all English Local Elections to have their own council-level Wikipedia article - I do not see why this is any different.  SoThisIsPeter ( talk ) Keep per SoThisIsPeter This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk ) 18:28, 5 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
Beat Radio: Clearly nobody is interested in maintaining this page.  I would have PROD but the AfD means I can't PROD.  QueensanditsCrazy ( talk ) 21:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Minnesota .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are a number of potential sources linked from their webpage here [1] which doesn't address the interest but could indicate notability.  I have not gone through them yet.  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The materials on the Beat site, which are quite well preserved (a good thing) and one or two of which would qualify as SIGCOV, plus some coverage in Radio & Records: [2] , suggest a keep.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sure the station operator is, in 2023, cringing at having used the phrase "the Rosa Parks of radio" to describe his station back in 1997.  Flip Format ( talk ) 17:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented above and in the article.  They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : It looks like a short-lived pirate radio station which subsequently supplied a very temporary sustaining service to a bankrupt broadcaster pending the transfer of its licenses and then became a monthly show on a community radio station.  Normally, I'd say delete, but it looks like it generated mainstream news coverage at the time, the article has been well researched, and so is good enough to pass WP:GNG in my view.  Flip Format ( talk ) 17:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 19:46, 27 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
Ian MacDonald (architect): Only sources in the entire article are awards he has received for his projects, and none of the info in the lead is verified in the body (if there even is a body).  🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada .  🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per previous AfD.  I'm not sure the nominator has done WP:BEFORE.  Articles such as [6] and [7] should be sufficient (as well as the long list of articles going back to 1997 on MacDonald's company website).  However, the awards were won by his company, Ian MacDonald Architect Inc., so I don't think they can be ascribed to him personally.  Sionk ( talk ) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but only after reviewing Sionk's sources.  The previous AfD bases his notability off of the Canadian encyclopedia, but I cannot track down their editorial policy as to whether it's a reliable source.  The article itself is a mess and the sources there don't demonstrate notability per the GNG.  I haven't performed an additional BEFORE to see what else can be added to the article since Sionk's sources are good in my book, but it really needs to be cleaned up - I would not have accepted it if it were at AfC.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting for further sources evaluation.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The two sources presented by Sionk are enough to satisfy me.  While there is interview content, there is also secondary content in the sourcing.  TLA tlak 23:56, 19 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
Akiko Kitamura: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Japan .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources .  DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession.  My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations.  Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 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
Mikey Bustos: As this is just a procedural AfD, I'm neutral as nominator.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Philippines ,  and Canada . Lenticel ( talk ) 23:22, 11 March 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 March 11 .  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , Advertising ,  and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I found a sizeable article on Bustos in Guam's Pacific Daily News : page 1 , page 2 . This would be the kind of coverage that we're looking for, to demonstrate notability. I'm not sure if we consider Pacific Daily News a reliable source or not. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pacific Daily News is considered the newspaper of record on Guam ( U.S. government source which points this out ), so I would consider it reliable for the purposes of WP:RS . -- Sky Harbor ( talk ) 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As a musician he meets WP:MUSICBIO , by having radio airplay and TV appearances, criterion #11 and #12.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree about WP:MUSICBIO ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think given the sources here, passes MUSICBIO as mentioned above.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:48, 18 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
Viktor Rájek: The closest ones to WP:SIGCOV are SME and Plus jeden deň , but those were from 12+ years ago.  Corresponding article in Slovak is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Slovakia .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The SME piece looks decent; age has no relevance to significance – and additionally I found a SIGCOV article when he played American football here / here – Olympedia is also decent, and coverage of someone there in modern times, especially from a non-English country, is rare.  Seems there's likely to be more coverage as well since it was 18 years ago when he competed at the Olympics.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both the non-database source in the article and the sources provided in this discussion are plenty enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:36, 24 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