hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Beast poetry: No indication of importance.  Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Poetry ,  and Europe .  Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in one form or another.  It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically.  However, he seems to be influential in the field.  Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ( [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] ).  One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book.  The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic , so if nothing else we could merge there.  But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre.  Jfire ( talk ) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify , convinced by Jfire.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The topic is fo-shizzle notable.  It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles.  I don't think draftify is warranted here.  It can be fixed being on the main space.  X ( talk ) 12:43, 3 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
Fantasy Amateur Press Association: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST.  Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article.  This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover.  Jclemens ( talk ) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom , published in 1954.  I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: " Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy ".  Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion.  It just needs work.  This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained.  Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This is an institution of many decades' duration.  AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations.  (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.).  -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 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
Sha'ir: The article as currently written is really principally oriented toward a Dungeons & Dragons class.  For the sources employed, it seems like what the article is meant to get at is the role of the poet in Jāhiliy Arab society.  Arabic poetry#Pre-Islamic poetry already covers this in a more substantive way.  It's not clear that the term sha'ir as such has a notability distinct from Jāhiliy poetry.  Pathawi ( talk ) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am at a loss as to why this AfD was brought to this location: the article makes no pretense of being about a religious topic.  TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I probably made a mistake.  Which location?  I thought I put it under 'Fiction and the Arts'.  Pathawi ( talk ) 07:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind.  I see that someone else cross-listed it.  Pathawi ( talk ) 07:23, 21 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!  22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - probably could be merged with Arabic poetry per nom, but has additional notability from D&D which might be enough to let stand.  Britannica also deems the subject notable enough to cover with a standalone article.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible.  The pre-Islamic sha'ir seems to have adequate coverage in tertiary sources, not least of which is course the above-mentioned Britannica.  The fact that the word has broader meanings is no obstacle , since articles are not generally about word meanings.  That said, I would have no particular objection to a merge.  The D&D thing seems pretty peripheral to the topic.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know that the two sources linked here are actually evidence of notability: Neither is an article on the sha'ir—both mention shu'ara' in discussions of Arabic poetry.  The Britannica entry does count, but its content is pretty meager.  Together these don't seem to me to constitute significant coverage in secondary sources, which are among the criteria for notability.  Pathawi ( talk ) 06:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As pointed out, it's recognized by another encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica , as originally a poet having a supernatural connection.  5Q5 | ✉ 12:11, 30 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
Keepa Mewett: JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and New Zealand .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career.  Worth a weak keep in my opinion.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:36, 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!  23:05, 21 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!  22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though I was initially leaning toward a delete some research shows the BoP Times profile, and other articles about being selected to play internationally as part of the Māori All Blacks .  Its thin but I think it is enough.  David Palmer // cloventt ( talk ) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He captained the Bay of Plenty side and played for the Māori All Blacks.  As well as the Bay of Plenty Times profile, there is this profile from the Manawatu Standard during his stint playing for Manawatū, and this podcast that profiles his life journey.  Paora ( talk ) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:HEY .  I will insist the sources per se be incorporated into the article.  All the best.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:55, 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: keep
Hirofumi Torii: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources .  DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession.  My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations.  Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 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
Dedication: The page summary for Dedication that exists does not address the overall concept, instead addressing the contents of one of the sub-pages.  I have requested that the disambiguation page be moved to the mainspace page .  This page needs to be dispositioned; if it is to move somewhere else it needs substantial help.  Darker Dreams ( talk ) 01:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw AfD Keep without prejudice , and move to Dedication (ritual) .  (If someone wants to open a new AfD after that, go for it).  — siro χ o 04:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to withdraw the AfD.  It's a reasonable suggestion, and voting to Keep (without prejudice to future AfD after a move) does the same thing while hopefully provoking additional relevant discussion.  Darker Dreams ( talk ) 07:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright I've updated to a keep ! vote.  My main motivation here is to facilitate your good idea of moving the disambiguation page to improve navigation.  — siro χ o 07:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Judaism .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under the new title once the move is complete.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By all means move, but then keep under the new title.  The article occupies a valuable middle-space between detailed articles on each specific ritual, and a mere unexplained list of rituals as would come from a traditional dab page.  It is valuable to have an overview of the diversity of dedication rituals that exist.  Elemimele ( talk ) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Keep but move under the new proposed title.  -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable topic and useful summary overview but move to Dedication (ritual) as proposed above to make way for disambiguation page, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:27, 25 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
David Cantolla: Shellwood ( talk ) 11:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the BAFTA win gets him ANYBIO, but at the very least, merge to Espacio Solo with which he's done a lot of work and where he's mentioned.  Star Mississippi 00:32, 7 July 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!  07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I did an outside search, and there are a lot of sources containing his name, the BAFTA win also makes him pass ANYBIO, He has created notable films too, if this reason is not too plausible, probably Merge will be better.  Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul ( talk ) 07:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It looks like UPE, but FWIW the subject is easily notable per SNGs/NBIO and may also pass GNG.  There will be coverage from different timelines independent of each other as he is known for being the co-founder of Espacio Solo , creator of Pocoyo and the co-creator of Jelly Jamm .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 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
The Havalinas: Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California .  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Not much found for the band, the song that Springsteen covered seems to have much coverage.  I'd redirect there.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above.  Seems appropriate.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources so we have the short bio there but it doesn't have the usual byline so thats a problem, then there is the Rolling Stone piece in the article and a link to the LA Times archive which suggests there is coverage there but without a direct link so its a weak keep and I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found quite a bit of LA Times coverage such as this , this , this , and this , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306 or merge to Tim Scott McConnell .  Disagree with other merge targets.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306.  The sources found indicate coverage and passing of GNG.  Tails Wx 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The Havalinas were active in the early 1990s.   There is substantial offline coverage.  Proquest search returns 329 results in publications ranging from the Chicago Tribune to USA Today .  [1] .   (The Wikipedia Library is an amazing resource.)  JSFarman ( talk ) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306 and JSFarman .  There is plenty of coverage in RS to meet gng.  Jacona ( talk ) 01:23, 22 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
Eastern Conference Champions: Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , California ,  and Pennsylvania .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:MUSIC ; there are a substantial number of independent sources out there, e.g., [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] .  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Paste Magazine, IGN, AllMusic bio as shown above.  Also found an AllMusic album review here .  Overall there is enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:59, 31 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
Jessica Kingsley Publishers: The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki.  As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 28 June 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 June 28 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , England ,  and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh thank you for fixing this for me. I could NOT figure out what part of the code was keyed wrong.  Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the sources are all fine.  This meets WP:GNG .  At worse this could be merged into John Murray Press , but I don't see the need.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 07:07, 29 June 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 June 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to meet WP:NCORP based on existing sources (van Goidsenhoven, Leni, The Bookseller , PW ).  While a minor edit pass could help it's not even a bad case of WP:PROMO .  — siro χ o 07:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , widely & internationally known publisher of books on topics related to autism with numerous notable authors. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  Randykitty ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now.  [33] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way.  For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source?  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:52, 2 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
Ailem Carvajal Gómez: Article is sourced entirely to self published sources.  The tone is also not encyclopedic.  WP:PROMO applies.  Possibly created by the subject or someone connected to them.  4meter4 ( talk ) 01:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Cuba .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The creating editor seems to have edited widely on Cuban music so I think the COI suggestion is probably not justified.  I see there's a piece about her in EcuRed , but that is probably not a RS (have added it as an EL).  Pam D 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This archived source may be useful though Google Translate can't handle it and nor can my limited Spanish.  Pam D 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has an entry in Latin American Classical Composers: A Biographical Dictionary published by Rowman & Littlefield .  Pam D 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great find PamD !  Nom withdrawn .  4meter4 ( talk ) 13:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: keep
Teleflora: NN business.  UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think the coverage of the company's advertising is enough to establish notability.  I added some relevant references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The company is quite obviously notable.  Sources need to be beefed up, that's all.  Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Lots of coverage of their ads (Teleflora ads are apparently a big deal in the ad world), so that establishes notability.  There's some stuff that can be added to the article about how florists don't like them.  Like UtherSRG , I'm surprised there's not other stuff, too.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:16, 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