hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Midlands Today: My BEFORE search found this Coventry website , BusinessLive , and this mere mention and I still don't see enough for WP:GNG .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move : We would probably move to BBC Midlands Today since BBC regional news since many articles have the BBC prefix in it.  Akhil K. ( talk ) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  Rillington ( talk ) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see no justification for this article's deletion, It is a significant regional news programme and contains independent references.  Rillington ( talk ) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  There's enough coverage in the sources already in the article and these further sources to pass the GNG: A look back over the first 50 years of the programme is SIGCOV.  [27] .  Brief comment on new look [28] .  Changes to the set [29] and similar.  [30] Suzanne Virdee leaving [31] .  Mentions in this book [32] Agree with title change to BBC Midlands Today.  Rupples ( talk ) 04:07, 5 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
United Breast Cancer Foundation: What news can be found is either in the form or press releases, or negative coverage about their questionable fundraising practices and costs.  But even then, they are not especially notable as a bad charity; it's just that that is the only thing they are even minorly notable for.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  11:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Medicine , Maryland ,  and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A Google News search suggests that the group is notable.  Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts may be relevant.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It is doubtful that Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts is relevant.  UBCF has received coverage as a "bad charity", but only in the context that there are many bad charities, and UCBF is one of them.  No coverage about their poor fundraising practices has focused solely on them and any particularly heinous criminal act.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , we could build a case for notability.  They do charitable things [22] and have a somewhat questionable public image [23] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Appears to be just enough to pass GNG [ [24] ][ [25] ] User:Let'srun 21:28, 27 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
Hotel Rose: Coverage is mainly travel listings or very local as per WP:AUD .  Also searched by previous name.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator).  I'm not convinced nominator has completed a thorough search for sources.  I was able to find coverage of the property as Riverside West Motor Hotel, a Four Points by Sheraton, Hotel Fifty, and  Hotel Rose quite quickly.  I've expanded the entry to include book, newspaper, journal, and magazine coverage spanning at least a decade, and I've not even checked the Oregonian archives yet.  This article should be expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Business ,  and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 18 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
Unseen University: Additionally, it is made up of entirely plot summary, which is forbidden under WP:NOT .  As for the previous AFDs, the last one was in 2010.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Schools .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is clearly not a plot summary, but it does need more references.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain where the article mentions Unseen University's real-life importance or reception.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Check out the sources I posted in the second AFD a dozen years ago.   Most of those links still appear live.  If you'd prefer, it is well within the nominator's remit to do up a source evaluation matrix on them.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources I brought up a dozen years ago and two AfDs back.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens .  If people don't want to keep as a standalone article, merge to Discworld , but I think it should be kept.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's possible, but creates all sorts of SIZE issues.   Fact is, we have a bunch of sprawling articles that could all stand to be tightened up, but being poorly maintained is not a deletion criterion.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens .  Also Unseen University and Discworld have become part pf popular culture in many places.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appear to have missed those when looking through the page history.  I would like to withdraw this AfD.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Discworld .  The article is still 100% plot summary.  If we have sources, then we had years for someone to write some reception/analysis section.  Enough is enough.  If noone cares for years to make this policy-compliant, redirect this until someone does.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:57, 12 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
Married (TV series): Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America .  Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 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 April 25 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , there are plenty of reliable references in the article.  EggRoll97 ( talk ) 22:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator needs to stop nominating American TV series articles at this point; well passes GNG with the sources existing minus weekly ratings, and a Judy Greer/Jenny Slate FX prestige project isn't going to be deleted.  Consider this a final warning to understand our deletion processes better, @ Agusmagni : ; this is like Angel Hernandez thinking they were calling strikes, when the pitcher threw wild pitches so bafflingly high that they hit play-by-play announcers in the press box three times over.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly notable series, the nominator is raising some WP:CIR concerns.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Keep GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Funny show with dedicated fanbase deserves a Wikipedia page.  Waqar 💬 07:24, 2 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
Samsung Galaxy S Plus: XDA Developers is referenced in the article as a source, but XDA Developers are user generated .  Nothing is close to notable about this article.  Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 15:20, 20 April 2023 (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/2023 April 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes but I Think if it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found a site with more info about it: https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9001_galaxy_s_plus-3908.php PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GSMArena isn't notable.  Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 12:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Deletion is not cleanup, article could be improved.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Yes I agree If it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep AndroidCommunity and TechRadar reviews establish notability.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject meets GNG.  Although the article does need to be significantly improved as others have pointed out.  CycloneYoris talk!  23:35, 27 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
Immanuel Ness: He has a very low citations count.  There is no way he meets WP:GNG .  Oluwatoniyi ( talk ) 15:01, 28 July 2023 (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/2023 July 28 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Colorado ,  and New York .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see evidence of Ness passing GNG in the citations.  Fix the COI issues, keep the article. -- User:Namiba 19:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think it is probably a keep based on potentially as an author passing WP:NAUTHOR combined with his work as editor of some journals. They are oxford university press journals, quite low but it its a low citations field. I think there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG . The article needs about 20 hours worth of work to clean to references and add additional references. There is bits of it that are cited to single refs and don't cover it properly per WP:V . The image of Ness, he looks like "Death warmed up". Perhaps a better image? scope_creep Talk 08:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:NAUTHOR for having reviews of his academic books, and I would say also passes WP:NPROF on the grounds of being the editor of several encyclopedias. -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his edited scholarly books are important--he succeeds in bringing together lots of established scholars writing essays for his encyclopedic multivolume worked on major topics.  Rjensen ( talk ) 06:15, 1 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
Stateline (TV program): Despite running for 15 years between 1996 and 2011, and an additional 3 years as 7.30 from 2011 to 2014, the article so far, only has 2 references.  I hope someone adds more references to the article.  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is significant coverage in reliable sources.  E.g. "ABC cuts: state 7.30 programs broadcast emotional final episodes", The Guardian , "Affairs of State", The Sydney Morning Herald , "7.30 Report cut back as States get ABC airtime", The Sydney Morning Herald , "State affairs back on ABC's 7.30 slot", The Age .  Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as shown by Jenks24 , WP:HASREFS and improvement rather than deletion is appropriate.  Storm machine ( talk ) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Storm machine , as the nominator, I am pinging @ Cunard to see if he adds the references mentioned by @ Jenks24 to the article.  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 07:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jenks24 , as the nominator, I have added the references that you have mentioned to the article just now.  I am pinging @ Cunard again, to see if he can find any more references for Stateline .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:20, 22 October 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
Cole Valley Christian High School: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity ,  and Idaho .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG.  Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available.  Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do).  Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso.  And if it's a toss up, we keep.  Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to keep.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the " Cole Valley Christian to double enrollment with new ‘state-of-the-art’ Meridian campus " article and sections of the " As educational choices grow, Valley religious schools fight to attract families " article.  I will check Newspapers.com for other articles.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG .  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough coverage identified in this discussion and referenced in the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is sufficient sourcing in the article to meet WP:GNG , so we should Keep this article.  Jacona ( talk ) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above.  St Anselm ( talk ) 21:24, 19 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
Andres English-Howard: Zero notability outside murder.  Onel 5969 TT me 20:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : rename to “Murder of Andrea O’Donnell” or something similar.  An option with BIO1E is to just make an article on the event.  Coverage is about abuse and truth serum as well as the murder; whole book here , as well as a page of analysis here and probably more than that here .  One of the books is 20 years later (in 2011), giving lasting coverage.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 23:43, 8 June 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!  23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I don't think the individual is notable (per nom), but the murder/case seems to be notable, and therefore moving the article to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell seems like a better way forward, and an ATD.  Would the nom agree?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - seems to be, unfortunately, just another routine murder, which would fall under WP:NOTNEWS .  Onel 5969 TT me 09:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does the legal implications of the murder and the truth serum coverage sway you?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, not really.   Stuff like that happens all the time, although I understand your viewpoint.  Onel 5969 TT me 15:34, 17 June 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!  23:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep & rename to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell .  The perpetrator is not notable, but the case is.  – brad v 00:37, 20 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
Immittance: Notability is unclear.  The term is used in various works, but this article likely requires a total rewrite ( WP:TNT ).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with emphasis on TNT.  WhichUser AmI 06:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WhichUserAmI : Can you give any reasoning for your ! vote?  I'm very confused.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that the article has the potential to be helpful if it were rewritten, given the fact that it is a topic used by several fields as noted by Elemimele .  Additionally, I am interested in topics like these and could be involved in research and the recreation of the article.  WhichUser AmI 10:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the article is badly referenced and very incomplete, but the briefest of Google searches reveals that the term is widely used in audiometry [40] but also in other fields [41] [42] .  AfD isn't clean-up, and the article isn't so dreadful that it can't be a foundation for improvement.  Elemimele ( talk ) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A simple before search shows several secondary sources discussing acoustic immittance, important in audiometry: [43] , [44] , and [45] .  The concept is also used in electrochemistry and electrical engineering: [46] , [47] , and (a primary source but with a good historical intro .  The topic is well above threshold for wikipedia notability.  The article itself is a poorly referenced stub, but the content is fine as far as it goes.  A notable subject and a stub with the WP:POTENTIAL for improvement leads to an obvious keep recommendation.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A widely recognized concept that should be described on WP.  Neither impedance nor admittance is a suitable redirect target. catslash ( talk ) 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . Given the comments above, including a possibility that User:WhichUserAmI may improve this article, and sources found by others, I am happy to withdraw this AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Y Accepted, began improvements to the article.  WhichUser AmI 05:34, 20 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