hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Palay Khan : Historianfox ( talk ) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hits seem to be only about the film with the same name, nothing found for a person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Terrible article, but I should have thought that anyone who was deemed notable enough to have both a biopic and a 13-part biographical TV series made about them was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've given the depictions a minor rewrite, and added a couple of sources on the 1986 film and 1990 TV series based on Palay Khan (just to prove that those depictions of him which allow him to qualify as 'notable' exist).  I will admit that I am struggling to find a source on the man himself (best I've found so far was https://pashtunhistory.com/palay-shah-khosti/ , but it seems a little bit too WP:SPS to cite in the article), but there might be some half-decent non-english sources out there.  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above arguments...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  Possibly notable.  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject is notable.  There are films (Indian and Pakistani), TV series, and novel based on his story. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 18:08, 19 February 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
Lyazzat Tanysbay : Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , looks unquestionably notable to me.  Geschichte ( talk ) 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agree on notability.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 14:53, 29 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!  22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An article that meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : -- Ashina ( talk ) 13:34, 3 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
Revaz Gigauri : Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : WP:CSK#1 applies as no deletion rationale has been presented.  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize, I have added the rationale now.  Shinadamina ( talk ) 08:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two World Cups and a simple search is bringing up GNG passing sourcing such as this and there will likely be more offline.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep You can improve the article too.  Orientls ( talk ) 14:42, 14 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
Ritchie Street : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India .  Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This Business Standard source appears to give decent coverage (something related to Chinese goods being sold there) [5] (though the full article is behind a paywall), the same thing was covered by The Hindu [6] , also a couple of paywalled sources by The Hindu, [7] (business and the pandemic) [8] (about the street reopening).  There are a few sources in Tamil as well (I'm not a Tamil speaker but google translate shows coverage), asianet [9] , and a local paper Daily Thanthi [10] .  Times Tamil also reported on the possibility of the street (shops) being relocated [11] .  Bingo bro (Chat) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on BingoPro analysis above.  Bikerose ( talk ) 20:13, 24 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
Dolní Poustevna railway station : An ordinary and unremarkable building.  The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others.  FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The station building was bigger than normal for a community this size because it was a border station with space for customs officials (originally Austria-Hungary, later Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic).  It has a long history (opened 1904).  The article can be expanded with information from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia at de:Bahnhof Dolní Poustevna , including this book reference: * Johannes Raddatz: Eisenbahn in der Sächsischen Schweiz, Band 4 Verlag Bernd Neddermeyer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-941712-20-1, S. 184–191 The Czech Wikipedia does not have a corresponding article on the station, but it does have articles on the community and the railway line .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Eastmain, a border station is highly likely to be notable.  There is also a Czech book which seems to discuss the reconstruction and reopening of the line.  [37] – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the above sources, there are another 2 online news articles describing the sale of the station building: Vanžura, Alexandr (2015-03-03).  "Dolní Poustevna koupí obří vlakové nádraží. Nechce, aby v něm vznikla ubytovna" .  Děčínský deník (in Czech) .  Retrieved 2023-05-29 .  - This article also contains a backgrounder to the historical usage of the station building Klaubenschalk, Alice (2018-02-05).  "Vlakové nádraží v Dolní Poustevně je na prodej, železnici se už nehodí" .  iDNES.cz (in Czech) .  Retrieved 2023-05-29 .  Jumpytoo Talk 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided, Meets GNG.  – Davey 2010 Talk 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as that this meets the WP:GNG .  WP:SNOW also applies! gidonb ( talk ) 02:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs improvement but looks like the sources exist to pass WP:GNG KylieTastic ( talk ) 15:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Hopefully the article will be expanded with material from German Wikipedia and other sources noted in this AfD.  References found look sufficient to achieve notability under the GNG.  Rupples ( talk ) 01:15, 5 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
The Laundromat Cafe : Uffda608 ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Denmark .  Uffda608 ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – it is mentioned here and here , and there are articles here and here by The Reykjavík Grapevine , but not enough to establish notability.  EndTheory ( ✉ • ✎ ) 20:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The Laundromat chain has received alot of coverage in the Icelandic media through the years, including Vísir.is [11] , Morgunblaðið [12] [13] , Dagblaðið Vísir [14] , Fréttatíminn [15] and Fréttablaðið [16] [17] .  I mostly picked these out of random from the 480 hits from 2000 to 2023 on the Icelandic newspaper archive Tímarit.is [18] .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging @ EndTheory @ Uffda608 if you want to take a look at the above sources.  Googling for Laundromat site:mbl.is and Laundromat site:visir.is also turns up alot of sources, although clearly not all significant, that I didn't go through.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks good, changing my vote to Keep .  I forgot to check non-English-language sources, my bad.  EndTheory ( ✉ • ✎ ) 16:53, 29 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
Louis Makepeace : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which event would that be?  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 10:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Although he became famous because of a single event, he seems to have earned more than 15 minutes of fame; coverage is ongoing.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:20, 23 May 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!  23:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although they are famous because of one thing, coverage is ongoing and they have done some other things that are notable.  WP:BLP1E is passed here.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 02:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per coverage of the subject's career over several years.  Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 20:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above Coverage is ongoing.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 03:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Four years after the event and he is still getting reasonable SIGCOV by the BBC here , means that his notability has developed.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:35, 2 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
Carl von Arensdorff : Maybe there is a case to merge with Friedrich von Arenstorff , but he seems poorly sourced as well.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sweden .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Denmark , Germany ,  and Netherlands .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is some coverage in this book and he may have an entry or partial entry in the 1929 edition of the Svensk uppslagsbok , but I could not find a digitized version of the latter so I'm not sure.  A redirect to his notable brother Friedrich von Arensdorff is a suitable WP:ATD .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The entry in the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon , as well as there being a very good indication of further WP:OFFLINE coverage, seems sufficient to me.  There is another much smaller entry in the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi here .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a source has been added and inclusion in the Danish DNB indicates notability.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know what "Danish DNB" you are referring to, but one source is usually not considered sufficient per WP:GNG .  Agree with Curbon7 tho that if those sources come through he probably would pass it.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevermind, I assume you meen keep per WP:ANYBIO 3., did not realize  Dansk biografisk Lexikon was a DNB.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, weak keep per WP:ANYBIO 3.  is probably the right call.  You can WP:TROUT me for missing this.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 22:00, 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
Balázs Kovács (professor) : Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Full professors at Ivy League universities should pass WP:PROF#C1 , and I think he has enough citations [17] .  Weak because his citation record and one book appear to be the only claims to notability.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per that guideline, research impact needs to be demonstrated through independent reliable sources, and that's not the case here.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Research impact under WP:PROF#C1 is almost always demonstrated through high citation counts.  If you read otherwise somewhere, then what you read differs from standard practice.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per David Eppstein, in this case the independent source is Google Scholar or any other third party citation service.  What wont work is a self published statement of an academic about how important they are.  -- hroest 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management , Hungary , Netherlands , California ,  and Connecticut .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The citation profile looks solid (nine papers in the triple-digit range, for example), but there doesn't seem to be much else to go on.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 9 papers with 100+ citations each is strong enough to pass NPROF#1, as demonstrated per GS.  -- hroest 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep David Eppstein is correct.  Lightburst ( talk ) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:PROF#C1 per David Eppstein.  Sndek ( talk ) 19:37, 23 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
Sønderborg railway station : Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This has a much more developed article on the Danish Wikipedia, and I'd be astounded if a 120-year-old railway station in a significant European city didn't have lots of sources available for it.  I would be surprised though if the majority of those sources were in English.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the rationale here is rather weak and doesn't explain why the article doesn't seem notable or what WP:BEFORE was carried out.  A station that has been rebuilt twice will have had coverage of the reconstruction in local press and thus will be notable.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 15:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the Danish article is longer, but contains no sources.  Not voting delete because I haven't done further digging, but I don't think keep is the right outcome here unless sources are found.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 03:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Thryduulf and Garuda3. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:04, 19 February 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
Kaoru Ikeya (director) : When looking for sources, I couldn't find sufficient to indicate he is notable.  Boleyn ( talk ) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   Fails WP:CREATIVE .   I'm afraid I can't remember what inspired me to create this article the best part of 20 years ago, but I seem to have been mistaken in doing so.  Tevildo ( talk ) 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think so.  But do you remember where you found that long quote that's in the article, by any chance?  (Added a few sources).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I speculate that it was from a (subsequently-deleted) review on IMDb, as otherwise I'd have put a link to the source.   However, I have no actual memory of the event.  Tevildo ( talk ) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No news coverage.  does not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR .  Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added a few things.  More exists.  Meets WP:DIRECTOR - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources added by Mushy Yank which demonstrate that he meets WP:DIRECTOR .  DCsansei ( talk ) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , with added sources.  Fulmard ( talk ) 07:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , besides articles in Japanese, even looking at Variety I can find reviews [74] , [75] , plus an article about his doc being a surprise hit at the Japanese box office.  -- C avarrone 19:59, 14 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
New Britain Mules : Let'srun ( talk ) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Connecticut .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 , where they have an entry, though that entry is also unsourced, and allow the article's recreation if the required sources are brought forward and a standalone article is justified.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per

Discussion outcome: keep
Lilt (company) : MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , United States of America ,  and California .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 01:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and remove promo content.  articles already linked provide SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every source in this article is WP:ROUTINE .  Care to provide sources that both focus entirely on the company and thoroughly examine it?  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 02:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree.  Axios and SaaS Industry are not routine "focus entirely on the company and thorough examination" is plainly not the guideline or threshold Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : This article is written like an advertisement.  It is now gone.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CastJared What do you mean by It is now gone ?  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 19:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Means it's removed.  Like the promo writting.  CastJared ( talk ) 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as promo content has been removed.  It is notable per SIGCOV in reliable sources that goes beyond routine.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems to me that the article should be left for revision and removal of the promotional text.  -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It appears that the promotional content has been removed, and that the listed sources are sufficient for crossing the notability threshold .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:46, 27 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