hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Mathew Moolakkatt: The only sources I can find that discuss him at length (string: "Mathew Moolakkatt") are tied to a controversy and legal case about Catholic marriage practises .  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 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!  22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't need to talk much here.  I thought this has been emphasized before, that the Bishop or Archbishop of a particular diocese or Archdiocese is notable by the virtue of his office.  It is an elected office for Wikipedia's sake.  See WP:NBISHOP too, or WP:CLERGY .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:08, 31 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: no consensus
Keenagolla: No reliable source.  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka .  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:44, 9 November 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!  01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Other than a nature reserve, other references are about a tea estate in another province.  Nothing found in gazetteer under this name or latest census.  Rupples ( talk ) 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Found co-ordinates, it is mapped and the area around is populated.  There's a Keenagolla primary school in  Walapane Education Division.  [12] .  No. 1408 on this official list [13] .  Striking delete on this evidence.  Keep getting Timed Out when trying to connect to the Divisional Secretariat website, which may give further proof of the village's/hamlet's existence.  Rupples ( talk ) 15:14, 21 November 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!  00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:50, 30 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: no consensus
Per Erik Hedman: The existing article could be expanded with a list of works he has created, but secondary sources do not exist to expand the prose of the article beyond its current contents.  Uffda608 ( talk ) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney , Comics and animation , Denmark , Sweden ,  and Artists .  Uffda608 ( talk ) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , nothing in Swedish Mediearkivet, not really anything in a Danish web search.  This has a one-page article .  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - WorldCat lists him as an author/creator of numerous books in multiple languages.  — Maile ( talk ) 21:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ones where he (and not another person by the same name) was the author are tiny children's books, we also have a comic about Phantom Blot .  What we do need however is secondary sources about his work (reviews) or about him, a library listing does unfortunately not cut it in 2024.  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 March 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!  19:36, 16 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: no consensus
The Gentlemen's Rant: Looking at WP:BEFORE , I'm having a hard time to find more reliable sources, thus failing GNG.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 04:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Think the sourcing here is sufficient to establish GNG.  Admittedly this is an article I created and worked on over a decade ago when I was much younger (and I do think of that decade-old work as mostly sub-par by my current standards for myself).  That being said, it's still a keep for me.  Or perhaps as an alternative to deletion, a move to John Elerick , the series' creator.  (I just created it as a redirect but suppose it could be deleted to make way for this to be moved to that target and then reworked as a BLP of Elerick).  These sources 1 2 3 exist and are more than suitable for inclusion on both this article and the hypothetical John Elerick one and in both cases would help support the establishment of GNG.  Soulbust ( talk ) 05:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:43, 4 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!  04:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Whilst more information and development would be great, this will not be possible if the page is deleted, and the sources demonstrate notability anyway.  An alternative could be to draftify it.  (Please note that I personally hate ranting videos and thus do not watch this show, so I am not biased).  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 15:50, 11 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: no consensus
Prasads Multiplex: Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India!  (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax).  So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG .  A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway.  Opposed to deletion.  (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."  So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 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!  23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Before closing this as no consensus, I'd like to try one more relisting Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think WP:ORG applies to a building, I did remove some of the promotional stuff but it does appear this meets notability due to the sustained coverage of it.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 23:55, 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: no consensus
Tyler Bocks: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Weak keep Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines.  Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass.  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Change vote to weak keep on additional sourcing found, players career starting to kick off also which may well lead to more sourcing.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems notable enough.  Found a couple of sources, including from the two major online media organisations, which I've added.  Greenman ( talk ) 20:21, 3 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!  23:14, 10 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!  22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: To summarize the third-party sources that have been added, there is this 2022 interview with Independent Online and this trivial mention in News24 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:05, 24 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: no consensus
大妈: Q 𝟤 𝟪 14:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:27, 30 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: no consensus
Deshbandhu Group: M.parvage ( talk ) 13:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - All the references from the company are used to identify subsidiaries.  "Most of the contents" is sourced from independent news organizations.  One of the largest conglomerates in the 25th largest economy in the world.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Subsidiary Deshbandhu Polymer Limited is publicly traded on the Dhaka Stock Exchange .  [34] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 22:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 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: no consensus
Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events , Judaism ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found this from a local publication.  The Buffalo News article from 2018 and the rest of the articles under the tag.  And there's more from this publication when you go below the article that's not from the link with the tag.  And there's from Buffalo Rising .  -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ WikiCleanerMan , meets WP:N. FortunateSons ( talk ) 11:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't arguing that it should be kept, but there are sources out there. It should just be added. But Google searching, you can find more from both of these publications for some reason not on their website. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets GNG [29] , [30] , a Google search showed more in addition to the above.  // Timothy :: talk 16:37, 14 May 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!  22:51, 15 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: no consensus
2021 Akkar explosion: No lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT .  News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly a noteworthy event and is supported by multiple reliable sources.  - w o lf 09:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Quick WP:BEFORE D1 search finds recent coverage from DW, Reuters, etc.  Even without that, WP:NTEMP applies.  Article needs touchup with investigation and societal repercussion (plus new sources), not deletion.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Last1in , literally no one needs to be wikilinked to BEFORE.  If, instead, you had provided a few of the stories you found, and they were good, I could have closed this as a keep already.  In the absence of such evidence I can't do that.  Drmies ( talk ) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drmies , publicly calling me out for failing to do what AfD nominators no longer even bother with makes it clear that I no longer understand the process.  Withdrawing my ! vote.  Thanks & Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 11:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Erm... wtf just happened here?  - w o lf 03:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What happened is that I walked away rather than collect more nasty little asides from an Admin.  If I want this kind of behvaiour, I can get it at the office.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:34, 17 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!  19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , haven't done a deep BEFORE, but I see some signs that this has been picked up into academic work.  [22] [23] .  Alternatively a merge to Lebanese liquidity crisis may be appropriate.  — siro χ o 05:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:11, 17 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: no consensus
Stuart Bell (figure skater): Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 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!  07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:25, 18 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: no consensus
NASCAR on television in the 1960s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY , mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability.  An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively merge to that target.  Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable.  See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split?  ...which is made of YouTube links.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:08, 23 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: no consensus
Humane Sagar: Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government.  No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Television ,  and Odisha .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment rather than no references there are 55 already in the article.  Those with significant coverage include this , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Receiving an award from a national or state government is not a prerequisite for an article's general notability.  Coverage in reliable sources is the measure of notability for Wikipedia.  At a minimum, there are multiple (at least two; a more familiar editor might argue more) sources of non-trivial coverage establishing the article topic as a subject.  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 01:09, 30 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: no consensus