hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Diana Perkins: JMWt ( talk ) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Psychiatry ,  and United States of America .  JMWt ( talk ) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as a Full Professor at a major research university whose research work has an h-index score of 109 (i10-index 288), and who recently received a $52-million grant from the National Insitute of Health, I am pretty sure she meets WP:NPROF .  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a high citation field but with first-author or single-author papers having citation counts of 1640, 799, 651, 310, etc [14] she passes WP:PROF#C1 .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A citation profile good enough to stand out in a high-citation-rate field indicates a pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passed PROF-C1.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:02, 14 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
Miroslav Kozák: References are terribly-formatted: secondary ones listed are routine football transfers (e.g. SME) and stories regarding his club appearances use database, the latter of which is obviously unacceptable per WP:BASIC .  My Google searches showed nothing relevant besides silly, random namesakes.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovakia .  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The nomination does not make sense to me.  Formatting of references is irrelevant in an AFD.  It's not disallowed or even discouraged to "use a database".  WP:BASIC is not an issue here, and the sources currently numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 are significant coverage.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , See Geschichte's comment above.  In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the sources show significant coverage?  Giant Snowman 16:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See Geschichte's comment above.  Nonsensical nomination.  Clearly also meets WP:BASIC.  In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:14, 1 July 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
Republic of China (disambiguation): A disambiguation page should be a list of articles that might otherwise be called "Republic of China", and any entries on this page that meet this criterion are all linked from Taiwan .  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and China .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but possibly cut down.  The title "Republic of China" is certainly ambiguous between Republic of China (1912–1949) and Taiwan , and is also occasionally used as shorthand for the Republic of China calendar , as in this source .  Many sources say "Republic of China" or "Republic of China period" to refer only to the period of Chinese history from 1912 to 1949 (excluding modern Taiwan), whereas some sources use it to refer to modern Taiwan.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether any of the other topics listed are also valid topics for this DAB, but there are at least three, and that's enough to merit a disambiguation page.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this is a great dabpage, since there are a number of links there that are not plausible for the search term "Republic of China", but the page should be kept and stubbified to retain disambiguation between Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949) .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Concerns addressed by User:Sillyfolkboy 's cleanup .  Keep .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've been bold and cleaned this up.  The article is pretty much the definition of a valid disambiguation.  SFB 16:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not called for.  The page seemed to have grown into a list of republican goverments in China, but as now revised, nicely deliniates the options.  -- Bejnar ( talk ) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , though properly cleaned up to just relevant articles and minimal descriptions. -- 188.31.148.74 ( talk ) 21:35, 3 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
Fabio Innocenti: The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any).  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , United Arab Emirates ,  and Italy .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  No third party independent coverage found, zero references.  Qcne (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and revert to before 83.110.13.102's edits: Going through the page history, I found something interesting.  The page was hijacked back in January and May by the IP 83.110.13.102

Discussion outcome: keep
Captain Citrus: , then deprodded by StarTrekker ( talk · contribs ) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] : Delete as no notable independent sources, probably even tenuous to link it back to Not That Ralph Macchio unless that page somehow contextualises a random mascot within his career.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the announcement in 2014 received a lot of coverage, particularly in Florida but also in some national media like WSJ and adweek: [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] .   Most mentions post-2014 are very passing mentions: [19] , [20] .  However, there are a few multi-paragraph mentions [21] and at least one entire article: Bouffard, K. (2015, Mar 30).  'Captain citrus': OJ sales fall more slowly; is it heroic?  The Ledger Retrieved from [22] .  And, perhaps surprisingly, a paper, although not very cited but still a published paper: Promoting Commodities through Comic Books: A Framing Analysis of the Captain Citrus Campaign .  Journal of Applied Communications .  2016.  I was going to vote delete probably but this is significantly more mainstream coverage of a comic book character than normal, even if it was mostly an ad-push, there was still some following on coverage.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, that's good stuff!  I wonder what I was doing wrong to not see that.  It needs an overhaul but yes, definitely salvageable.  How do I go about changing my vote?  Do I edit the first one or just post Keep ?  =) BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BoomboxTestarossa WP:DISCUSSAFD has some instructions but generally: Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one.  The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <del> and </del> after the * , as in "• Delete Keep ".  I've also see people strike their vote and then do their new vote in a different comment.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skynxnex thanks, appreciate the patience!  =) Keep per sources listed, apologies all around.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider the revision of the page as my penance for the premature nomination and as a thanks to @ Skynxnex for the sources.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Cry for Help (Steven Universe): Kuchi Kopi ( talk ) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  As I said in my comment on the AfD for The Answer (Steven Universe) , the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is!  Please withdraw this incorrect AfD.  This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban.  It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned.  Unless you're accusing

Discussion outcome: keep
Hip Hop Congress: I added 'notability' and 'primary sources' tags 9 years ago and they were removed without addressing the problems.  My attention was drawn back to it today when an IP editor added a press release.  Time for the article to go, in my opinion, fails WP:GNG.  Sionk ( talk ) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Organizations ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is kind of bad but the organization is notable.  There’s a book here , an article here , as well as some in-depth coverage in a book about college students’ lives here .  The subject (if not the article) passes GNG.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few citations to the article Mrfoogles ( talk ) 03:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the suitable WP:THREE that were provided and now added by Mrfoogles.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the cited references already in the article.  The was a poorly thought through nomination.  Additionally, there are other sources in google books, so it's clear WP:BEFORE was either not done or incompetently done.  4meter4 ( talk ) 17:44, 5 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
¡Qué Locura!: Seems like WP:ORIGINAL research.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article has two newspaper references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Meets WP:GNG .  Qué Locura was the main and most popular hidden camera-comedy television show in Venezuela.  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : https://www.produ.com/television/noticias/los-20-programas-mas-vistos-en-venezuela-son-de-venevision-segun-agb-nielsen/ https://www.laprensalara.com.ve/nota/8041/2019/11/iexclqueacute-locura-el-programa-de-camara-escondida-regresa and plenty of other coverage indeed show it's a popular and notable show.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:20, 15 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
Chołod : I find no critical reviews of the work either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I do not agree with the nominator's statement.  As a Polish speaker, I would like to point out that the book received a lot of attention.  In addition, it was written by an author of box office hits.  It meets the stricter standards of the Polish Wikipedia, and I believe it will also meet the standards of the English Wikipedia.  I completed the section on reception today, pointing out several reviews and notices by serious Polish media.  Paradygmaty ( talk ) 06:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Forbes and Kultura Liberalna reviews meet the two reviews necessary for WP:NBOOK (and it looks like there are more too).  Thanks Paradygmaty for adding those to the article.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Rellisting to consider additions by User:Paradygmaty to the article and whether that helps establish notability for this book.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:40, 16 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!  04:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources added by Paradygmaty seem to satisfy WP:NBOOK .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 05:35, 23 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
Giedrė Labuckienė : BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Basketball ,  and Lithuania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively.  A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I finally edited it and Im gonna take a part of Polish Wikipedia ItsMeGabeProductions ( talk ) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search?  Alvaldi ( talk ) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player.  [1] [2] [3] Alvaldi ( talk ) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Article definitely needs work but the subject seems to meet WP:GNG .  Aside from the ones provided by Alvaldi, I found [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination.  A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per rationale by JTtheOG.  Chekidalum ( talk ) 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is evidently a notable player.  Niafied ( talk ) 07:27, 28 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
Tiny Urban Kitchen : It should be noted that this article has been marked for deletion for 12 years! pinktoebeans (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Websites .  pinktoebeans (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Two references are still "multiple".  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG .  As Eastmain noted, the subject has multiple pieces of significant coverage.  User:Let'srun 19:41, 2 September 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!  22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete - Popular local blog, but hasn't received any attention from sources outside that local area (and not very much locally, either, apart from the Globe and a local award, which don't usually count for much in terms of notability).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per nominator, Eastmain , and User:Let'srun .  They state that there are multiple SIGCOV sources.  Then why did the nominator go ahead and nominate anyway?  It's NOT the case that we lack AfDs! gidonb ( talk ) 07:23, 12 September 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!  23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it was also featured on a public radio segment a decade ago [4] .  I think we have GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not the blog, the lady that runs it seems notable, she's gotten some coverage [5] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - some additional coverage: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2600523482/67C55DCEF3C34D01PQ/2 .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:34, 20 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
Joseph Engel : MirrorPlanet ( talk ) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film ,  and France .  MirrorPlanet ( talk ) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Canadian Screen Award is a top-level national film award of the type that automatically nails WP:NACTOR notability right to the wall.  Every single actor listed in the award's article must be a blue link, with no exceptions — across all of Canadian Screen Award for Best Actor , Canadian Screen Award for Best Actress and Canadian Screen Award for Best Lead Performance in a Film , every other actor in all three articles has a standalone article, because it's the type of notable award that makes its winners and nominees inherently notable because they won or were nominated for it.  And there are no "insufficient" sources according to NACTOR guidelines; every single footnote in the article comes from a reliable source , two of the sources are substantially about him and his performances, one verifies the award nomination that nails his notability, and while the other two admittedly just verify his presence in supporting roles in earlier films before his "breakout", they're still from reliable sources and the early roles aren't the crux of his notability anyway.  Bearcat ( talk ) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:NACTOR The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films as verifiable via footnotes in the article.  — siro χ o 06:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:26, 29 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