hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Matroska: No independent coverage whatsoever.  Tagged since 2021 - Altenmann >talk 04:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand why deletion is a more reasonable reaction that maintaining the request for additional secondary sources.  mkv files have become an overwhelmingly popular portable video container, I worry that if the article is deleted it will just come back in a sorrier state later as its vague continual cultural relevancy encourages contributors who notice its MIA status and restore it.  JohnnyJ7766 ( talk ) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I wrote in the nomination, the article was tagged since 2021.  3 years is plenty of time, isn't it?  If you vouch to work on the article, it can me moved to the draft space ( WP:DRAFTIFY ), where you can continue to work on it until it becomes acceptable.  - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG based on books listed here: https://www.google.com/search? tbm=bks&q=Matroska .  There is sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the guideline.  The article relies too heavily on sources affiliated with the subject, but that can be fixed later and does not affect the subject's notability.  Streamline8988 ( talk ) 06:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree, while the article can and should be improved, and independent sources added, there is no reason to just delete it.  There are relevant sources spanning different domains ( https://www.lavanguardia.com/andro4all/tecnologia/como-reproducir-archivos-mkv-en-android-todas-las-formas ).  CasuarioAlmeriense ( talk ) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Significant independent coverage in multiple books , scholary sources , and mainstream publications .  DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (and even expand, maybe?).    When I was learning about downloading Torrents (ie movies) using BitTorrent, nearly all the movie files are saved in the . MKV format.   I absolutely found Wikipedia useful in figuring it all out (I'm no multimedia expert!).      Without somewhere to look up info about . MKV files I'd have been lost...(!) G6cid ( talk ) 23:36, 19 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
List of ESPN personalities: Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Sports ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [ [26] ], [ [27] ], [ [28] ] and [ [29] ] just for starters.  I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Let'srun.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST.  Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 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
Little Miss Millions: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and only found passing mentions here and here via Newspapers.com.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , first leading role for Jennifer Love Hewitt , and so meets inclusionary criterion for WP:NFIC #2.  It likely meets WP:GNG –it's covered in a few biographies: [21] [22] [23] ,  given the year of release, and the fact that it was played at holiday seasons, it should also have further paper sources not necessarily available online.  — siro χ o 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agree...first leading role for JLH.  Also, found this at newspapers.com [24] Donald D23 talk to me 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agreeing with Donaldd23 and Siroxo, who provided convincing sources.  Thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources above, and the nominator has been advised of doing a deep WP:BEFORE so many times already.  Absolutely know that every possible source has been exhausted before considering either PROD or AfD.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per consensus.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:02, 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: keep
Karen L. Parker: Primary source and one showing they named a scholarship after her, which implies notability, but no sourcing...  Even what's used now in the article is trivial.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , California , Michigan ,  and North Carolina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill considered naming a school building after her: UNC-Chapel Hill seeking final submissions to rename campus buildings with racist ties (News & Observer, 2021, "Karen L. Parker was the first Black woman undergraduate at UNC and chronicled her years as a student during the civil rights movement.") At the UNC Library archive Karen L. Parker Diary, Letter, and Clippings , there is biographical information included with an overview and details about her writing, See also [42] .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added many sources and expanded the content.  Sources now prove notability.  Rublamb ( talk ) 10:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY and the sustained coverage that helps support WP:BASIC / WP:GNG notability.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Rublamb and Beccaynr have clearly demonstrated that Parker meets GNG.  Excellent work, both of you.  :) -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is evidence of notability, and it has been over time.  I think it should be added to the Civil Rights Movement Category as that group may add more over time.  But this is much better than many stub articles we have on wiki.  Jsgoodrich ( talk ) 03:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Christmas time – WP:SNOW keep.   – S. Rich ( talk ) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Expanded and sourced since nomination, WP:BASIC is met.  Sam Sailor 08:38, 21 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
Carolyn Davidson (diplomat): Fails WP:GNG .  Uhooep ( talk ) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Japan , United Kingdom ,  and Guatemala .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article could be expanded using content from the Japanese article, but could be redirected to Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka .  Moondragon21 ( talk ) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could also be redirected to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it could.  Moondragon21 ( talk ) 17:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep change to keep based on sources found below.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep along with spouse: from Embassy magazine : "For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission".  Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership ; The Times, Secret of a double life ; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador Piecesofuk ( talk ) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly found sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Lightburst ( talk ) 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7654649.stm gives significant coverage as well.   Those who didn't say keep, please look over the coverage found and state if you changed your mind or not.  D r e a m Focus 21:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Career British diplomat, sourced and to the point.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:01, 18 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
Brat (Nnamdï album): Only one major review.  ⠀ tomás tomás tomás ⠀ talk ⠀ 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed this somewhat malformed nomination.  No opinion at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!  Don't know what happened with the autogen.  ⠀ tomás tomás tomás ⠀ talk ⠀ 03:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Why was this nominated for deletion?  Besides the three good sources already cited, a web search shows plenty more, including this in-depth article on its production from the Chicago Reader , reviews in Document Journal and PopMatters , and more coverage within this Vice profile .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 04:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : reviews from Pitchfork , PopMatters , and Loud and Quiet , all three of which appear on RSMUSIC .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also appears on multiple year-end/mid-year album rankings as seen here.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The 3 cited sources at the time of nomination show criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM .  In addition to the sources found by Hameltion and QuietHere I'd add this profile from KEXP.  GanzKnusper ( talk ) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per  (a) the above  (b) WP:SNOW  (c) even more reviews that look usable such as mxdwn.com (not mentioned at MUSICRS but used in several articles), The Alternative , [19] Musikexpress .  Geschichte ( talk ) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources from Hameltion and QuietHere.  hinnk ( talk ) 22:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
List of current CFL team rosters: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems patently obvious this type of article should be okay - we even have a category for them at Category:Lists of current team rosters .  The WP:TG argument I don't buy either as these can easily be un-templated and transcluded from the main team's page if needed.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for several reasons.  (1) The vast majority of CFL players are notable, and WP:NLIST states that Notability of lists is based on the group ; (2) all the transactions, news, etc. that make up these teams are very widely covered; (3) there are independent websites that track all CFL teams' rosters, e.g. TSN and footballdb ; (4) your citation of WP:TG notes that Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function – there is nothing else that can perform this function; and (5) if all else fails, then I think we should WP:IAR keep this as it is immensely useful to both readers and editors.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Useful navigational aid.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 20:27, 31 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
Lord Derby Cup 2023–2024: Mn1548 ( talk ) 11:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and France .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – can be reformatted to match similar articles, highest level cup competition in France so should be notable enough and sources are available – I will have a go at improving it.  EdwardUK ( talk ) 12:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankyou, that looks miles better.  My only issue now is that this is the only season of the Lord Derby Cup with an article.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It should be possible to create articles for some other seasons.  Treize Mondial covers as far as the 2017–18 season, so that would provide enough sources for three more excluding the cancelled years.  For earlier seasons it would be more difficult, but the FFRXIII website has news going back to the final in 2012.  This can be used to provide some information and is helpful for knowing what to look for in other independent sources – the French Wikipedia articles are of no help for providing sources, but could also be used to suggest what to search for.  EdwardUK ( talk ) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to keep the article.  In addition to his work reformatting the article.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:00, 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
World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency: Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia : ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep but burn to the ground and rewrite.   This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [33] , [34] , [35] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap).   The coverage may not quite be "significant" in all cases, but is there.   Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form.   Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [36] .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lead still isn't enough though.  It just cuts straight to "Two industry "Pre-N" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed".  No identifying sentence.  thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheTechie , Do you have a suggested improvement?  Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not merge it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @ TheTechie ?  That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep But absolutely crummy stub.  Needs a total rewrite.  X ( talk ) 19:03, 23 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
Christmas Eve Procession: It is a mess of unknowable claims mixed with folk legend and I'm not sure even where to start trying to verify the article.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sources at all, and a lot of broken wikilinks and other problems.  Endersslay ( talk ) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The lack of sources can be addressed without deletion , which I've just done.  A simple web search for "christmas eve procession malta" turns up dozens of sources, so I highly doubt that the claim that this doesn't pass the WP:GNG , which the nominator doesn't actually evidence.  – Joe ( talk ) 09:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has changed greatly, from an unreferenced mess to a sourced stub article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added a couple of sources and added text to the article.  I think we would do better to add to the article, rather than delete it.   This is an annual sacred event to the island of Malta.  Re the nominator's statement of, "...unknowable claims mixed with folk legend", the annual Malta event is about the birth of Jesus.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the improvements to the article including reliable sources references Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is now a sourced stub which nullifies the delete arguments.  -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk ) 04:42, 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
Ingrid Halstensen: The article is in 3 languages.  I encourage you to use the find sources tool on this article, you'll plenty of references that show the subject is notable.  Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on Speedy Keep, about the sources being reliable, VG ( Verdens Gang ), one of the references used is the most-read online newspaper in Norway.  [1] Aftenposten , another reference used, is Norway's largest printed newspaper.  [2] Nettavisen is a news source with no reliability issues.  It is one of Norway's most popular news websites.  TV 2 (Norwegian TV channel) is the news source that she works for.  Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Sports ,  and Norway .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the fact that most of the sources are not in English does not justify deleting the article.  WP:GLOBAL .  DCsansei ( talk ) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253 ^ https://www.statista.com/statistics/633186/ranking-of-printed-newspapers-in-norway-by-circulation/ 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