hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ulysse Pastre: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Elected member of the French Chamber of Deputies is a clear WP:NPOL pass.  Did the nominator even read the article?  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Curbon7.  Passes NPOL.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Curbon7.  〜 Festucalex • talk 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per Curbon7.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Zut alors, the French wiki article uses two biographical encyclopedias of French parliamentarians, couldn't ask for better sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sure, the article could use some expansion, but he held an inherently notable role that passes WP:NPOL and the French article features more content and sourcing that can be used to improve it with.  Bearcat ( talk ) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we snow close this please?  No need to take any more time over it.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As Curbon7 mentioned, meets WP:NPOL as a member of the national legislative body of France (Chamber of Deputies).  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:37, 15 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
Scott Alexander Hess: I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors , Theatre , Sexuality and gender , Missouri ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - sources 1 and 2 might be enough to meet generic notability .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:32, 20 December 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, Daniel ( talk ) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've added reviews of Hess's works (including a recently published work) from Kirkus Reviews and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  I feel he's notable per WP:NAUTHOR , more specifically because of the critical attention his work has received.  Bridget (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the improvements made.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:59, 31 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
Newry City F.C.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsfc1887 ( talk • contribs ) 08:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notwithstanding that this AfD nomination appears to be malformed and incomplete, deletion is not cleanup.  If there are two subjects with overlap, that is normally addressed with a merge.  See WP:MERGEREASON (for when to consider a merge) and WP:MERGEINIT (for how to propose a merge).  There is no reason to delete this title and the nom doesn't assert a policy-based rationale to do so.  Keep.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Northern Ireland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep - it can be a bit of a grey area when a football club goes bust and is "re-formed" as to whether the two clubs should be considered the same or separate.   if they are separate, then having two articles is valid.   If they are the same, then they should be merged.   Either way, deleting this article is not the appropriate course of action -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 15:05, 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
Dinobot (Beast Wars): Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 14:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously satisfies GNG.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ citation needed ] Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are some sources in the article already, but additionally: A good amount of character discussion occurs in this comic review .   I know it's CBR , but this is an actual review as opposed to a listicle (where he definitely shows up in a few as well).   Dinobot comes up in several of CBR ' s pieces on this run, but most recap the story (another shortcoming at times).  This one spends more time on Dinobot himself. He seems to be one of the more notable aspects of Beast Wars highlighted by Collider in this piece , and while Flickering Myth covered an entire three-season run, discussion dedicated to Dinobot exceeded WP:100WORDS here . Polygon also dedicates quite a bit of discussion of him in a couple different pieces: One where Dinobot comes up in discussion of the recent film Transformers: Rise of the Beasts where he doesn't appear to even be a character, and another in coverage of Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy . Plenty of sources WP:NEXIST .  This one doesn't need as much trimming as some of the others, but a little could stand to be removed.  - 2pou ( talk ) 23:44, 31 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
Jill Astbury: No significant coverage.  2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability.  Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Health and fitness ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by.  Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option?  While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field.  I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk ) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) — 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Shimon (DJ): Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this is about the closest I can find [20] , it's about an un-related robot.  There is nothing for this person, who appears to not have done any music in at least a decade.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bona fide top 40 hit in the UK passes WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 05:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I was not able to find any coverage of the subject in newspapers or books.  I tried to search for him in Allmusic, which I remembered is an accepted source in some context , but his profile only has a list of songs, with no biography nor review to support the claims on the article.  Searching in other sites from the aforementioned source lists did not get any useful results eithter.  While "reaching top 40 in U.K." mentioned above was certainly impressive, I'm not so sure about citing a group as evidence for an individual's notability.  Even then, the problem with the sourcing still exist, and it'll seem that the only reasonable way to keep the article was to reduce it into one sentence: "Shimon Alcoby is a member of the group 'Shimon & Andy C'."  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it's not a group per se, it's a collaboration between Shimon and Andy C , two notable musicians.  The Officialcharts listing solves the RS issue as it is an officially-published nationwide chart and satisfies the WP:V requirement for purposes of WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:15, 23 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
Mart Visser: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Netherlands .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an easy pass of the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE .  This is a famous fashion designer in the Netherlands.  See here for the fifty highest-ranking newspaper articles about him.  Many are still unavailable as from the 1990s and 2000s.  The little that is already available is sufficient.  No lack of interest also since.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG .  Article needs work, but very much a notable designer and sculptor.  Beyond the many newspaper articles mentioned by gidonb: His work has been part of multiple significant exhibitions, including but not limited to Mart Visser Haute Couture in 2003-2004 in the Kunstmuseum Den Haag (which also had an associated book of the same name published by Dutch fashion journalist Fiona Hering), and the 2022 exhibition of his sculptures and paintings in Beelden aan Zee Some of his fashion pieces are part of the permanent collections at the Kunstmuseum Den Haag (can't grab a direct link right now because the museum's site is experiencing some issues; however, once it's back up again, going to kunstmuseum.nl and searching the collection should work) and Centraal Museum Utrecht .  Possibly elsewhere too, those just popped up in google without having to go and individually check the collections of every major Dutch museum.  Subject of a documentary film on his life and work, and covered in Milou van Rossum's book on Dutch fashion, De Nederlandse mode in 100 kledingstukken .  AddWitty NameHere 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, User:AddWittyNameHere .  This nomination is another giant BEFORE failure.  Folks keep nominating articles mostly because these carry X years of this or that warning.  Seemingly in defiance of Wikipedia:There is no deadline and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  gidonb ( talk ) 02:09, 26 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
Ctrl the Tour: The page was then recreated under the slightly different name "Ctrl The Tour" in 2023, which I have just history merged into the original page.  However, it still doesn't look from the article' s sourcing or elsewhere, as if there's sufficient coverage for this to be independent, so I'd suggest it be redirected once more.   — Amakuru ( talk ) 12:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Australia , New Zealand , Canada ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:32, 20 February 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 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some talk of the tour a few years later, [40] , with what's in the article, should be notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article has a fair amount of coverage, but could use a more reliable source rather than Setlist.fm, (It is in the sense like Wikipedia where any user can edit the article) I could probably see what I can do with the article.  But I believe the article should be kept.  AskeeaeWiki ( talk ) 22:37, 27 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
BharatPe: Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I concur.  This fails WP:SIGCOV , so fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Why is this different from the second nomination which was closed as keep following HighKing 's ! vote - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BharatPe (2nd nomination) — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per previous AfD where sources (research reports by independent analysts) that meet the criteria for establishing notability were located.  Oaktree b , what is wrong with those sources?  HighKing ++ 13:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had only seen the new article when reviewing the financial category, was not aware of the prior nominations.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 12 August 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!  23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was about to ! vote to delete based on NPOV, as WP:ATD states If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.  But given that High King already found sources, I decided to improve the article with respect to it's current state instead.  I removed unverifiable information from the article, added some verifiable information from the sources currently present, and generally cleaned up some NPOV issues.  I think we can keep based on High King's sources.  It would be good to add those into the article to improve it more, because at the moment, we have a really basic "company did money thing" stub right now with one borderline promotional quote that had previously been unattributed close paraphrasing.  — siro χ o 03:12, 17 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
Yevgeny Slyusarenko: There is no noticeable importance. -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] I have written the article and I made sure it satisfies WP:N by adding references to multiple reliable sources . The nomination does not address the point. Obviously keep . -- Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Russia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is need for amendment with WP:NJOURNALIST as it doesn't help with AFDs.  The article has been appointed by notable newspapers including referenced by Gazeta.Ru is enough to meet WP:SNG for journalist.  The problem is who is really a journalist?  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  01:59, 24 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
Charles Sabourin: Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Psychology .  Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There has been some article hijacking going on here — the article is

Discussion outcome: keep
Latham Park: Nothing to suggest that the stadium has much notability outside of Newtown_A.F.C. but possibly could be merged as an AtD JMWt ( talk ) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales .  JMWt ( talk ) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:GEOLAND , WP:NBUILDING .  (update)  There are independent RS cites on the page.  Including BBC and County Times.  I feel this nomination is floored.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain more.  It is not a habited place or a natural feature and isn’t a historical building of national important so I don’t see how that guideline applies JMWt ( talk ) 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Geoland and NBuilding encompass the aspect of being a geographical location and the physical building of the stadium.  Yes you need sources to establish this and there are sources, the place has links to a historic figure of George Latham (footballer) , which adds the historical aspect.  You have a multi-use venue, so a redirect straight to the football club is a no.  Upon a google search, there are loads of small news articles about the place.  That all adds up, the two BBC sources in the article [15] , [16] and with the other sources is more than enough for basic GNG.  Your nomination is floored.  Thank you.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I dispute this reading of the notability criteria.  Passing and insignificant newspaper articles are not enough for the GNG or NBuilding.  JMWt ( talk ) 12:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Newtown A.F.C. - no evidence of notability.  Giant Snowman 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Govvy.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Govvy. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 22:30, 27 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
Tirukkural translations into Fijian: Already covered in Tirukkural translations .  No proof of WP:Notability of the the 2 transalations on its own accord.  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy ,  and India .  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More citations added to establish notability.  Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani .  Article now passes WP:GNG .  Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles.  Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations .  // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 27 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