hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Fararu: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The nominator misinterpreted the WP:WEBCRIT guideline as and (instead of or ) making the WP:BEFORE unclear.  I read the lede incorrectly.  But the WP:BEFORE is still unclear.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Though the website seems to be a popular news outlet in Iran, English-language web search reveals little to no in-depth coverage.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 12:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Apart from its being a popular news website in Iran, it has significant coverage in [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , and [58] .  Ali Pirhayati ( talk ) 09:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Coverage in foreign languages counts toward notability.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:13, 18 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
Gaean Reach: A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources.  My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N .  Jontesta ( talk ) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Jontesta ( talk ) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books.  PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation.  Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that.  Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep To me the provided sources are not trivial mentions and enough to establish notability, and are supplemented by shorter treatments like here or here .  Daranios ( talk ) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Jclemens above.  / Julle ( talk ) 21:18, 1 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
Kyne: It appears like it may be trying to be a dictionary entry.  Sourcing is nearly non-existent.  AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Rambling expansion of a dictionary definition.  Athel cb ( talk ) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It looks like it underwent an edit to get more inline with other surname entries.  I think the page should be renamed to Kyne (surname).  I would also support a Redirect to Coyne (surname) if that article were fleshed out to include this variant.  Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sourcing and sources support a short surname/DAB page.  As we now have.  Deletion is not cleanup.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Kyne (surname) does sound like a good solution Either way I'm sure there are other well known Kyne articles to be written, such as Raymond Kyne, Irish industrial designer, artist, stamp designer and past-president of the Society of Designers in Ireland, now called the Institute of Designers in Ireland .  ww2censor ( talk ) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Since an editor unilaterally chose a topic for the article and replaced all the content present at the time of nomination, none of my original nomination stands.  The replacement article is a fine stub.  AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 11:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Concern expressed by nom was valid when the article was in the state that it was at the time, though it appears an adequate WP:BEFORE check may not have been done.  It's a valid name SIA now and nom has agreed to keep so I'd recommend a speedy close.  I'd also recommend moving Kyne to Kyne (surname) and turning Kyne into a DAB, given the other two topics listed in the hatnote, over which the surname does not seem to have prominence.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping @ Athel cb : AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:08, 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
Stephanus Muller: Had this been written only a few days ago, I would have immediately draftified it.  As it is now a few years old, a discussion needs to happen in order to do that.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Music ,  and South Africa .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Enough book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR .  As for the shape the article is in: despite the plethora of scary cleanup banners, I've seen much worse (in BLPs in no danger of being deleted) and WP:DINC .  And calling for draftification of a years-old article with years-old cleanup banners is just a dishonest way of calling for its full deletion after it sits unaddressed for another half-year.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The recent addition of book reviews strengthens the article's compliance with the notability guideline for authors.  Deletion seems like a harsh solution.  We should improve the article, not delete it.  Waqar 💬 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  per WP:NAUTHOR the subject is notable.  While there are some issues with the article, this is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  -- hroest 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  While I accept the reasons for moving Draft:Friedrich Wilhelm Jannasch to drafts and will continue working on it, @ UtherSRGhas also reversed my call to move Draft:South African Music Encyclopedia into the mainspace.  Seems like a blanket clampdown on my actions, without regard for the relative merit of the articles.  Viljowf ( talk ) 15:24, 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
Juan Carlos Loustau: Single-source BLP.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Football ,  and Argentina .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would recommend withdrawing this nomination.  A web search throws up dozens of Spanish-langauge newspaper articles about the subject – [17] and [18] alone are massive ones – and that should come as no surprise considering he refereed one of the most famous matches in World Cup history and was considered a world class referee [19] .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 22:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV .  Its been on the cat:nn for list for 13+ years and never been updated.  It was sent to Afd to get a discussion going, instead of a prod.  Hopefully somebody can update the article with suitable references.  scope_creep Talk 08:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I think there's just enough in-depth coverage available.  Most of the source mentioned above (and results in my BEFORE) are not secondary (lots of quotes from the subject), yet I think the La Voz del Interior piece is good (and indicates his stature among football referees) plus Clarín 's piece on his family "dynasty" helps get where we need to be.  Jogurney ( talk ) 15:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following improvements Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:44, 29 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
William Tash: Drowssap SMM 23:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This isn't appropriate for soft-deletion as the primary contributor is still actively editing the article.  Relisting to form consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Significantly expanded since nomination with coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Easily meets the GNG and has scope for further expansion.  Philafrenzy ( talk ) 16:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy , this article now easily meets WP:GNG .  Edwardx ( talk ) 13:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to have been appropriately expanded.  Whispyhistory ( talk ) 21:32, 1 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
Brian Merchant: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism .  Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Thriley ( talk ) 22:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As Mr. Merchant is a published author and a columnist with a regular byline, I find him notable.  I think the article, presently a stub, is lacking in content, but that is no reason to delete it.   Far better to add useful comment to the brief history and his growing corpus of work.  Jax MN ( talk ) 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NAUTHOR by a mile.  The One Device was reviewed by Financial Times , New York Times , and The Guardian , among others.  Blood in the Machine was reviewed by Wall Street Journal , New York Times , and New Scientist .  Jfire ( talk ) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs a rewrite, but the book reviews posted in a comment above mine are good for passing AUTHOR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article needs work, but AfD is not for quick fixes.  Jfire identified many potential sources .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jfire makes a good case.   The subject specific guideline for authors has been met.  D r e a m Focus 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Katherine Jashinski: Possible WP:1E .  It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Jashinski is widely discussed in reliable sources regarding the current state of conscientious objector laws.  Here are some examples, more than enough to establish notability: Interview in Objector Journal from 2006 Discussion in scholarly journal Peace and Change from 2013 Discussion in Rules of Disengagement, a monograph published in 2013 by NYU Press There are more, but these are the ones that are visible without subscription or a copy of the book.  Try the GScholar search above to see what I mean.  In any case, these sources are spread over seven years and there are other even more recent ones.  They're enough both to meet the GNG and to refute any claim that this is a 1E issue.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to have coverage in RS.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY if and only if the sources found are added to the current stub.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have added the sources to relevant points but I have not expanded the article.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:56, 25 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
Siobhan Austen: Could not find coverage to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See the well-cited articles at https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=%22Siobhan+Austen%22 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY , Phil Bridger.  Seemed to already well meet WP:PROF to me, but for the absence of doubt I've added 4 reliable sources.  Cabrils ( talk ) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , easily meets WP:PROF as per discussion above.  LibStar continues to nominate articles for AfD without performing basic WP:Before, or demonstrating a competence in evaluating source for SIGCOV.  Raises questions of competence Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (barely): There are two reviews of their book [9] .  Source eval: Comments Source Publisher, primary  1.  Austen, Siobhan (2003).  Culture and the Labour Market.  Edward Elgar Publishing.  p.  [1].  ISBN 9781843763178.  Primary, from employer  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Curriculum Vitae Siobhan Austen".  Curtin University.  Primary, from employer  3. ^ "Overview of the Wiser group".  Curtin University.  Iffy  4. ^ Wood, Stephanie (18 June 2022).  "'I don't mind camping, but I won't sleep in the car': what happens when superannuation keeps failing women".  The Guardian.  ISSN 0261-3077.  Retrieved 19 May 2023.  Iffy  5. ^ Costa, Monica; Sharp, Rhonda; Austen, Siobhan (29 September 2020).  "Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back".  The Conversation.  Retrieved 19 May 2023.  Iffy  6. ^ Wade, Matt (16 July 2019).  "There's a reason Australia's gender pay gap is so persistent".  The Sydney Morning Herald.  Retrieved 19 May 2023.  Primary, from employer  7. ^ "Overview of Siobhan Austen".  Curtin University.  Its a close call between TOOSOON and Keep, I think the squeeks past GNG and NPROF "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." states that "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." gives a little room past the two reviews of their work.  // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 22 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
Abuta bullata: Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and South America .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete, see also a notice on the talk page here , I don't think there will be any intention on improving any of the mass-created unsourced articles.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Updated following significant article improvements by Significa liberdade.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 16:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSPECIES .  The plant clearly exists.  This article has the plant name in the title, and it's included in various plant guides, as now shown on the page.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 15:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously - for validly described recent taxa, we maintain articles at the species level.  Admittedly this was the worst possible logorrhoea dump before the recent improvements, but those improvements were readily made.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's because it was a lightly warmed over copy and paste of https://www.selinawamucii.com/plants/menispermaceae/abuta-bullata/ ("© 2023 Selina Wamucii").  Uncle G ( talk ) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for clarity, I added some sources, but I did not add actual content to the page.  The original editor had "headings" in the source text that were incorrectly done.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's one indicator of a copy-and-paste job.   The headings were in the original, in the same order as they are in Special:Permalink/1192070528 .   But most copy and paste mechanisms don't preserve the formatting.   So they are apparent in the raw wikitext, as here, but come out as unformatted sentence fragents in the rendered page, also as here.  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This article " is " the main species article .  Loopy30 ( talk ) 03:37, 28 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
Arboricultural Association: A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject.  The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website).  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal ) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:28, 21 April 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!  04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way.  Nevertheless I find 1 , multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mccapra.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:41, 29 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