hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Fun and Frustration: However, the theme and the pace remains the same.  This is not a film franchise (most have 3+ films).  This article does not add anything that is not on F2: Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration .  The box office performance is not significant like K.G.F (film series) .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 07:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 4 July 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!  06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguate - the article is just a synthesis of material from the F2: Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration articles.  It would make sense for this page to disambiguate the two.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  02:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:19, 26 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: no consensus
La Crosse Technology: Graywalls ( talk ) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Minnesota ,  and Wisconsin .  Graywalls ( talk ) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Local newspapers are still good sources.  I added a couple more cites from the La Crosse Tribune, but yeah good cites are scarce, and I wouldn't complain if this ends up not being enough. --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Neko-chan : , WP:NCORP places emphasis on source quality due to susceptibility of companies/organizations article to public relations editing.  WP:AUD specifically calls that at least one of the sources providing significant coverage must be regional or national, so based on these guidelines, I find the company unable to satisfy notability.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:AUD purely local mentions do not contribute towards notability.  Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:13, 11 March 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!  06:42, 15 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: no consensus
Buffer theory: It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article.  Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant.  I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here .  It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword "migration" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources.  More could be found with different search terms.  I can't also think of an article for this to redirect/merge into.  The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration , which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion.  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:50, 30 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: no consensus
Damn It Ani Barach Kahi: AShiv1212 ( talk ) 06:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Need to wait for more reviews.  Orientls ( talk ) 12:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment reviews look arguably OK as they are right now; the article has been updated somewhat since nominated for deletion.  Merge to Mahesh Kothare is a sensible ATD since this is an autobiography, if we're not going to keep it standalone... but again, that's difficult to evaluate.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:06, 2 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: no consensus
NASCAR on television in the 2000s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability.  An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively merge to that target.  Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable.  See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split?  ...which is made of Youube links.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:08, 23 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: no consensus
Danny Moir: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [40] ], [ [41] ] and [ [42] ].  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:21, 31 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: no consensus
2017 IWBF Asia-Oceania Championships : This article relies almost entirely on associated (non-independent) sources).  Our article on Wheelchair Basketball World Championship shows limited notability from outside the organization, itself, so I can't see notability of an individual season from an individual part of the world.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball , Asia ,  and Oceania .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG with coverage.  We have plenty of articles on individual quadrennial regional championships.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:52, 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: no consensus
Lingam Suryanarayana : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability is not big, but enough to keep -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk ) 22:35, 12 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! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion about notability appears to be used to delete some selected articles. What notability you require more than his position as Vice chancellor of an Indian Health university, Principal of a century old Andhra Medical College , WHO expert on some Health issues related to developing countries and good number of research publications. Would you like to consider only "Big" award winning persons only to have biographies in English Wikipedia.-- Rajasekhar1961 10:45, 24 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!  08:02, 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: no consensus
Anton Iaria : BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Italy ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided : Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a few articles giving background info about him in the The Mail: [24] , Love RL: [25] and Total RL: [26] .  Also there are sources in which the name is given as "Ilaria" or "Laria".  EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources provided above by EdwardUK, this appears to pass WP:SPORTBASIC .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 13:21, 19 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: no consensus
Hannah Paynter : The three references on the page are route coverage and not exclusively about the subject.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Located significant coverage from The Day – there's also a runner by the same name that's got some coverage, e.g. Winston-Salem Journal and [43] , not sure if its the same person.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article from The Day is regarding the same rower.   The article from the Winston-Salem Journal is about a different person.  Ehatchman ( talk ) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , with the Day article mentioned above, the sources in the article and her Princeton profile I think it's just about enough to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a link to the athletes bio from the USRowing (NGB): https://usrowing.org/sports/pan-american-games-team/roster/hannah-paynter/799 67.248.172.141 ( talk ) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here is the link to coverage from USRowing https://usrowing.org/sports/2023/10/4/2023%20pan%20american%20games%20coverage%20page.aspx 67.248.172.141 ( talk ) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:42, 13 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!  04:13, 20 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: no consensus
Workers Party of Barbados : Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and Barbados .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A random dude, obviously not a notable party.  Reywas92 Talk 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable.  Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article expanded now.  Going through what is available online, we can deduce that there was plenty of coverage of the party as of the mid-1980s, and that the fore-runner of WPB (MONALI), which from my reading could be considered one and the same organization, had gained national notoriety during the protests of 1983 Grenada invasion.  We can also surely assumed that there would be coverage in Cuban, Soviet, Korean and Nicaraguan news outlets, not available online.  -- Soman ( talk ) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How would North Korean media be WP:RS during an active conflict situation?  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - concur with

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Brice Bexter : Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Morocco , France , Switzerland ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I felt there was sufficient media coverage, although some of the sources are not in English.  Starklinson ( talk ) 01:16, 21 July 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!  04:13, 27 July 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!  04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:44, 10 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: no consensus
KVHF-LD : This subject survived a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 14 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: no consensus
Druxy's : If you search in Google News, they only mention a few things such as an acquisition and a listeria incident.  Indeed, I would even say that this coverage is merely trivial.  Also, Williams Fresh Cafe doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia.  If there's any new info about its notability feel free to share it otherwise, this article should be deleted.  Thank you.  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Oh, there's coverage.  Food-borne illness outbreak [10] , [11] .  Not strictly about the company, but their food handling got several news reports about the outbreak.  Those are just the first two I pull up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was quite the outbreak [12] and another incident [13] .  They're likely notable for the number of outbreaks that have happened alone.  There's coverage in this book from 1986 about Bruce Druxerman, the founder [14] , but it's paywalled from my location.  Google doesn't want to pay for displaying news, so most sites are walled off...  Frustrating.  VPN to the rescue.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:NCORP requires better sourcing than a few trivial mentions here and there related to a listeria incident.  None of the above sources are significant coverage about the company.  You must have guts to pretend that "A person contracted a Listeria infection after eating food sold at the ​Druxy's restaurant in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre" or "The sandwiches were purchased from the Druxy’s restaurant in the cancer centre" count for something in terms of notability.  -- C avarrone 08:43, 11 March 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!  16:45, 15 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: no consensus