hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Undercover Angel (film): Rotten Tomatoes states there are two reviews but neither of them are shown.   I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from The Dove Foundation .   Needs one more review in order to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST.   I found only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com .   The review from Common Sense Media doesn’t count because it’s a review for the 2017 film of the same title.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added the review the nominator mentioned+2 mini reviews (but one is in El País ).  Keep .  Worst case scenario: redirect to director's filmo but I don't think it's necessary.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are also reviews in The Ottawa Citizen and the Los Angeles Times .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 06:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and comment .  Since the fall of 2023, The Film Creator has nominated 28 articles for deletion with only 3 closing as delete .  That's pretty remarkable.  Of the articles that were kept, half were kept speedily.  This verges on a situation where The Film Creator should seriously consider if they should refrain from starting more AFDs.  From the many film nominations, it can be widely observed that:  (a) Rotten Tomatoes is useless in many cases.  (b) The Film Creator is unable to find reviews that other users have little problems finding.  Why is that?  (c) The Film Creator should learn from these users, and maybe even contact them directly instead of wasting everyone's time with ill-conceived nominations.  (d) Sure, the articles are improved through this process, but AFD is not cleanup.  Geschichte ( talk ) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw this nomination.   Apparently, I need to practice WP:BEFORE more carefully.   I vow not to nominate any film articles for the rest of 2024.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:09, 28 January 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: speedy keep
Daniel Zeng: This one-sentence stub links to 2 deadlink references and claims that the subject is an IEEE fellow, but I have not been able to confirm even that.  Qflib ( talk ) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Qflib ( talk ) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  IEEE Fellow is explicitly called out by WP:PROF as a pass of criterion #C3 and is trivially verified by accessing the online IEEE Fellows Directory [17] .  This is one of many badly-written stubs on notable people left by long-blocked sockpuppeteer Topcipher/SwisterTwister; they need cleanup, but WP:DINC .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly I was unable to find that link; thank you.  Qflib ( talk ) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also he passes WP:PROF#C5 as a (former) named professor at the University of Arizona, #C3 again for AAAS Fellowship, and #C1 for heavily cited publications on Google Scholar (none of which were to be found by the stub in its nominated state, which didn't even make it obvious which Daniel Zeng it might have been referring to).  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, David.  I appreciate your help.  I don’t think I can withdraw the nomination but I definitely would do so.  Qflib ( talk ) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course you can withdraw your nomination.  I did the same thing the day before and have done so in the past.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d be glad to if I can just figure out how.  Qflib ( talk ) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In penance, I have added more information to the page from the links that David kindly discovered.  Qflib ( talk ) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How to withdraw: just leave a comment here saying that you want to, and some other editor will do the rest.  You can also close the nomination yourself but that's not necessary.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Engineering , Computing , China ,  and Arizona .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A classic example where doing the AfD forced a rewrite of a very weak stub (that had been left weak for seven years) so now it clearly demonstrates notability.  Withdraw nomination I would appreciate it if an editor would close this nomination, which I clearly made in error.  Apologies and thanks to all.  Qflib ( talk ) 15:17, 24 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: speedy keep
Fallen Angel (2003 film): pinktoebeans (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator as per discussion and added sources below pinktoebeans (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  pinktoebeans (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note this article has been previously tagged for speedy deletion in 2016 pinktoebeans (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And please note that that speedy deletion was immediately declined.  The page was also ProDded in the past (and again, that was contested).  More seriously, would you, in the light of the sources presented, consider withdrawing this nomination?  Thank you very much.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) @ Pinktoebeans : [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This review from Toledo Blade should probably qualify.  Here is a review from Dove.org .  Here we have Movieguide .  These two are more questionable.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets requirement for notability of films, as could be expected with such a cast.  Added sources (some happen to be mentioned by Geschichte above).  See for yourself.  Thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  I dug further and found two syndicated pieces; reviews in three countries [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] ; capsule reviews [18] , [19] , [20] as well as an Associated Press recap that puts the viewership (when the film premiered) at 17.4 million .  No real WP:BEFORE can have been done before nominating this.  I therefore whole-heartedly recommend access to Newspapers.com through something called the Wikipedia Library.  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified and added to the article by Geschichte and Mushy Yank.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:38, 15 January 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: speedy keep
Ekram Hossain : The present sources show that the subject has not met WP:GNG .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Canada .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Engineering ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to be an easy pass of WP:Prof#C1 .  Would the nominator care to comment?  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .  I agree about #C1 and he also passes #C3 (IEEE Fellow) and #C8 (former editor-in-chief but once notable always notable).  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn I stand corrected.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:48, 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: speedy keep
Atlantic Pilotage Authority : Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  And state agencies are usually notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as per above.  A very quick Proquest search for "Atlantic Pilotage Authority" finds over 300 hits.  I've not looked through these in detail, but at the top is an article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald called " What is the Atlantic Pilotage Authority? " - ProQuest 1844960365 ; it's on the same page of the newspaper as a story " AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT; Ferguson raps pilotage authority " - ProQuest 1884515637 .  The Wikipedia article should be significantly expanded and improved.  Nfitz ( talk ) 15:35, 1 June 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: speedy keep
Croydon City Arrows SC : Couldn't find any online either.  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia .  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a semi-professional football club that has been around for well over 50 years and has played at various levels including the top tier of football in Victoria .  The club has also produced several former Socceroo's.  There must be loads of sources especially in print media.  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Simione001, was Victorian state champion, willing to AGF that there are offline sources.  Giant Snowman 19:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would helpful if some sources were produced to counter the nomination statement.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree that there are a few ofline sources given that I found a few on Archive.com here .  If you consider these then you could probably find something.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  I also found [1] , [2] and [3] among many more sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thanks for that, ill withdraw ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 23:23, 28 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: speedy keep
Dorcadion pseudinfernale : Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time.  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer.  @ Aydoh8 : please stop nominating species articles for deletion.  The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like "no information on subject" and "a complete waste of time" have no basis in policy.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort.  @ Aydoh8 : please consider this a warning.  You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy .  None of these is acceptable in the long term.  If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:52, 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: speedy keep
Red heifer : Fails notability criteria.  Valid elements should merely be placed in appropriate section of red heifer main page.  Mistamystery ( talk ) 21:09, 28 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: speedy keep
Love Again : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 19 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: speedy keep
Central Building (Seattle) : CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment two offline print sources are listed.  If these are non-trivial independent RS, the GNG is met regardless of what you do or do not see on-line, correct?  Were you able to see and evaluate these?  Jclemens ( talk ) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat ; I added it after the nomination was made.  It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Historic/landmark building, helpful info here .  I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination.  Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design.  Entry should be expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Espresso Addict.  Notable per heritage.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per city landmark designation.  There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown.  Sounder Bruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above.  Thanks for proving me wrong.  Boleyn ( talk ) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Boleyn , not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made.  Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion.  Appreciate your principled editing.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] +1.  While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:51, 28 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: speedy keep
Chen Xiuke : Appears to fail WP:NOLYMPICS .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I've added sources to the article which I believe are enough to meet WP:GNG .  More sources are available online with a search for "陈秀科".  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 01:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep New articles added by Mx._Granger support independent notability despite not medalling.  Two articles from Hainan Capital News (hinews.cn) in particular are indepth coverage of Xiu.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Well done on those news articles.  Quick peruse with Google translate turned on shows that at least two of them mention the subject in-depth.  There is now a tenable case for GNG being met.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thebiguglyalien would you consider withdrawing the nomination now these sources have been found?  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:54, 23 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: speedy keep
Peter Fleming (historian) : The bibliography of the article when moved out of the draftspace was extensive, given here if it aids in anyone's reference search in an attempt to meet WP:NAUTHOR , but most of those only appear to be chapters in various books.  Withdrawn .  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , History ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found and added to the article two authored books with multiple reviews each, an edited volume with again multiple reviews, and another authored book for which I could not find reviews.  It's difficult to be sure because of the common name, but they're all on medieval English history and I think all his.  That's enough for WP:AUTHOR , I think.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements by above.  And overall notability per WP:GNG.  Also sources looks ok.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lionel Cristiano ?  14:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn nomination, Speedy Keep in no small part due to David Eppstein above.  Thanks everyone.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 17:36, 27 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: speedy keep
Xaviersobased : ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!  01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator -- appears they do in fact meet the notability minimums.  Barely.  ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!  02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!  01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sources in the article present SIGCOV. — Alalch E. 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are also other sources... like this Pitchfork review — Alalch E. 01:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  : https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/xaviersobased-keep-it-going-xav/ https://www.stereogum.com/2247412/evilgiane-40-feat-nettspend-xaviersobased/music/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/xaviersobased-nettspend-yhapojj-interview-1234982383/ https://www.thefader.com/2023/09/18/song-you-need-xaviersobased-is-his-own-texture https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/753698-xaviersobased-keep-it-goin-xav-soundcloud-tape-hip-hop-news https://www.thefader.com/2023/04/24/song-you-need-xaviersobased-and-ayooliis-pop-trunk-is-a-fever-dream https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/xaviersobased-and-kuru-paterson-new-jersey-new-song-listen/ https://ourgenerationmusic.com/exclusive/xaviersobased-interview-ogm/ https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/50-innovators-shaping-rap-next-50-years-49231/xaviersobased-3-49267/ sorry for the wall of links, but for me, this sure meets "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." for me Authenyo ( talk ) 01:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems I'm incorrect about the notability of this artist.  I'll withdraw this nomination.  ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!  02:29, 31 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: speedy keep