hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop: #BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop , but it does not have that enough sources to establish notability.  A {{ notability }} tag was placed three days ago but no new sourcing was introduced.  Toadette Edit!  18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep.  This is an important musical theatre institution, numerous sources about which are easily found on Google as well as pre-internet sources.   It already had plenty of good sources, and I added a couple more.  This article should be greatly expanded.  I think the nominator should do a Google news search and withdraw this AfD.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable, given the number, range and weight of sources (the retrospective on its fortieth anniversary in the industry magazine Backstage should be enough od an indication on its own really, but there are numerous others).  - SchroCat ( talk ) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and close per WP:SNOW .  Clearly a notable organization with lots of WP:SIGCOV across several decades in a wide range of sources.  It even gets 47 hits in google scholar which shows there is coverage in academic publications as well as in the many newspaper and magazines used as sources in the article already.  This was not a well thought through nomination.  4meter4 ( talk ) 17:39, 6 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
Zubaan Books: It's not a an article shall be created for a publishing company for it's general publications.  In that case, every book publishing company and NGO on the globe shall have its own page.  There are lots of feminist publishing houses and this happened to be the first.  The parent company page already exists, then why do we have a different page for this.  Thewikizoomer ( talk ) 19:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete There is one good source, one so-so given in the article as it stands now (both green per sourcebot).  I can only find evidence that they exist (book reviews for books they've published, list of books by them at various book fairs in India).  One more decent source, it would be a keep.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Live Mint seems to be better than the Hindu source, both in the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sigcov already in the page and this article in The Punch .  I also don't appreciate the nominator threatening me with administrative action for deprodding this article earlier.  pburka ( talk ) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s really inappropriate.  Closing admin see: diff 1 , diff 2 — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This publisher meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  A search for their name in Wikipedia Library returns 196 hits in magazines and journals.  In addition, I found media coverage of the press in Scroll.in ( link ), Outlook India ( link ), The Punch Magazine , Ananke Magazine , Paper Planes , Frontlist , and other places.  -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - lots of refs and notable.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notability per above.  Also note to the nominator, pleass note that WP:WHATABOUT is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion.  Raladic ( talk ) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 01:06, 6 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
Zoltan Torey: Coverage confirms he wrote a few books but nothing indepth.  Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Psychology ,  and Hungary .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If the SMH obit, which contrary to nomination's claim is indepth, is not enouh to convince you I've included details of book reviews below.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Book reviews: The MIT Press Philosophy in Review [26] , [27] , Terrible Gifts David McCooey , 2003 review, Australian Book Review , September no. 254 2003; (p. 50-51) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Light in the Darkness Shane McCauley , 2003 review, The West Australian , 6 September 2003; (p. 16) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Conscious Decisions Mary Rose Liverani , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 26-27 July 2003; (p. 11) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~654 words Seeing Clearly Through the Mind's Eye Lesley Chow , 2003 review, The Sunday Age , 20 July 2003; (p. 10) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~691 words Light from Darkness Luke Slattery , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 28-29 June 2003; (p. 24) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~907 words The Remarkable Clarity of What a Blind Man Sees A. P. Riemer , 2003 review, The Sydney Morning Herald , 5-6 July 2003; (p. 15) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Also worth looking at [28] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with the book reviews above, passes AUTHOR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , that's plenty of reviews.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:03, 1 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
East Rugby 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 ) 19:43, 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 20:00, 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× ☎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:42, 18 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
Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship: 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 ) 20:40, 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 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league ,  and Wales .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : After a little bit of further research, this used to be the RLC Welsh Regional.  Still can't find anything more than a passing mention so maybe a redirect to a subsection of South Wales Men's League could be a better alternative.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Merge and Redirect to South Wales Men's League as successor competition.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:53, 18 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
List of paramilitary organizations: UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as far as I know, if a topic is notable a list of that topic is notable.  Paramilitaries are definitely notable, so shouldn’t this be notable?  I’m not actually voting “keep” because I suspect the real reasoning here is that the list looks like crap and will almost certainly never be improved to a usable standard, so WP:TNT and WP:IAR could easily apply.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:TIND .  The list does at some points feel incomplete, of varying standards and what not, but a lot of lists on dynamic topics (and paramilitary organisations tend to come and go as they are formed, engage in conflict and are wiped out, or offhand information might simply be lacking) tend to be incomplete by definition.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 18:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a valid information and navigational list.   Links to plenty of articles for paramilitary organizations.   Would be better if there were columns for information like the start of the Asia section has right now.  D r e a m Focus 00:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This passes WP:NLIST , as paramilitary organizations have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources .  These include Paramilitary Groups and the State Under Globalization , "Goons, Gunmen, and Gendarmerie: Toward a Reconceptualization of Paramilitary Formations" , "Strong militias, weak states and armed violence: Towards a theory of ‘state-parallel’ paramilitaries" , and many other reliable published works.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:58, 22 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: keep
Erin Harkes: Boleyn ( talk ) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , New Jersey ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree.  Doesn’t meet GNG guidelines and thus should be deleted.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Go4thProsper Please check the new citations I have posted below and reconsider your vote.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I withdraw my “Delete” vote.  I am neutral to this AfD post.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 22:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Nominator has not done a good job at BEFORE.  Just found a whole bunch of news articles about her and have updated the article.  Check 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep refs provided satisfy GNG.  Djflem ( talk ) 10:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weakest of IAR Keeps : I can't find more than passing qualitative coverage of her music or comedy -- and that includes the additions by Royal88888 none of which fully meet WP:INDEPENDENT .  National attention (Fallon) is clearly not sufficient.  Her best-established claim for notability is against WP:MUSICBIO #7 for winning multiple local newspaper polls for best local singer-songwriter, but that still requires sufficient independent coverage of her.  What tips me over the line for MUSICBIO#7 is her hosting the 2019 Capital Region awards .  But this is rather operating by sonar, and it would be nice if there were clear significant RS coverage of her work -- music and/or comedy -- that wasn't agglomerated with an interview or press release (noting that there may well be coverage that is not or is no longer offline).  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 09:05, 17 November 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!  22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Additions by Royal88888 have clearly demonstrated notability.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:19, 1 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
The ClueFinders 4th Grade Adventures: Puzzle of the Pyramid: Article does not have enough sources to support notability.  I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks @ Zxcvbnm for the great resource for video game reviews.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep MobyGames lists no less than 6 magazine reviews, so it seems notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I just looked at it, I'm neutral .  I don't really see the problem with a merge, but by the standards of a video game article today it is barely meeting GNG.  Andre 🚐 06:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 22 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
Shut Up and Eat: There is in fact a restaurant of the same name in New Jersey.  https://www.nj.com/food/2023/04/shut-up-and-eat-inside-njs-wackiest-restaurant-with-servers-in-pajamas-and-a-sea-of-kitsch.html LibStar ( talk ) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator).  The article now has approximately 30 sources, ranging from books and major newspapers/magazines ( The Oregonian , Portland Monthly ), to local publications ( Portland Mercury , Portland Tribune , Willamette Week ), to industry sites ( Eater , The Daily Meal ), and other media outlets ( Thrillist ).  I'm satisfied with the amount of independent secondary coverage and I've not yet searched the Oregonian archives.  This seems to be yet another nomination submitted before a proper source assessment.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of these sources may come under WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS . Note Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications . LibStar ( talk ) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, how many times do we have to go over The Oregonian not being just a local paper? Surely The Oregonian qualifies as a regional or state publication, being the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does this restaurant get any coverage outside of Oregon?  It does for a different restaurant in New Jersey.  LibStar ( talk ) 17:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not having this discussion again.  I gather you understand my position and we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  I would encourage you to start a wider discussion at an appropriate venue about WP:AUD and specific sources (specifically The Oregonian ) instead of mass tagging for deletion.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD .  gidonb ( talk ) 11:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : closure has nothing to do with notability, ever.  This article passes all relevant notability criteria.  ɱ (talk) 21:10, 26 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
Felix Neff: An ED entry is not enough to satisfy notability.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Switzerland .  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : An Encyclopedia Britannica entry is, broadly, usually enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards.  Neff also gets an entry in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature , which is generally considered reliable for biographies.  Neff's memoirs and musings are considered indicative of early 19th-century Continental Protestant thought, such as in this article .  Neff, interestingly, seems to have had some contemporary influence on popular imagery of the Alps (see this article ), but perhaps a bit more is needed to pull on that thread.  In any case, he’s notable and we have the sources needed to cover him.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the Waldensian Evangelical Church seems keen on him (see this link , initially introduced by a disruptive editor).  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Pbritti ( talk ) 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the source linked by Pbritti lists several dead tree books (admittedly some from the 19th century) with his name in the title.  Enough for a GNG pass, and per WP:NEXIST they don't have to be referenced in the article to count towards notability.  Jclemens ( talk ) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Take one single look at fr:Felix Neff and you know this is an article that needs expansion, not deletion.  Sam Sailor 07:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can readily believe that the article needs expanding, rather than deleting.  However, it definitely needs some attention from someone familiar with sourcing and how we write - I'm guessing that it is a copy/paste from an old copyright-expired entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica.  It's written in an archaic, hagiographical style.  Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Encyclopædia Britannica is far more selective than Wikipedia.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sourcing shown by Pbritti above 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Pbritti's work - thanks for your work on this.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article, but don't keep the existing text, which reads like it has been copied from the Britannica.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:17, 28 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
MIKTA: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete it man.  Bourenane Chahine ( talk ) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bourenane Chahine Why keep it?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:09, 11 January 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!  07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The group is mentioned on websites operated by the individual countries (for instance Australia , Korea , Turkey , Indonesia , Mexico ).  Of course, these links could be regarded as primary/non-independent sources, but they do show that the group is active and relevant to these governments.  More importantly, its purpose is discussed by the UNDP in Seoul [14] and it also received coverage by the Council on Foreign Relations [15] , the journal Global Summitry [16] , The Diplomat [17] , the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs [18] and so on.  There's plenty more using a basic Google check.  A Google News search also provides regular coverage of the group's activities.  Pichpich ( talk ) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found here.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Packerfan386 beer here 18:48, 18 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: keep