hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Edesio Alejandro: Fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO and WP:NMG .  Only one reference to a source of questionable reliability.  Geoff | Who, me?  20:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cuba .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Article may need a copyedit but does indicate notability.  Seems to meet both WP:BASIC /GNG and WP:NMUSIC .  Bit of a BEFORE shows a ton of English language stuff.  Allmusic prose biography with a credited author is promising per WP:ALLMUSIC [7] .  Some sigcov in books eg [8] Credited composer on several notable films including some festival awards and tons of niminations.  Given native language, Spanish language sources will likely provide more.   — siro χ o 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as I haven't done a full search yet but as well as the AllMusic bio there is also a staff review of one of his albums here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources brought up in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He has had a Grammy nomination as shown here which meets criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC and means we really should be covering him.  Looking for sources there are many articles in Cuban news.  There is significant coverage here from Radio Enciclopedia , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:56, 30 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
West Moreton Anglican College: Fails the general and organization notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely Keep .  This college seems to be much better documented than many.  Academic article here [9] , lots of newspaper articles, unclear to me if it's the same school as St. Paul's Day School under a change in name, but that school dates back to the 19th century.  Jahaza ( talk ) 23:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jahaza.  Meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:26, 21 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
Calvin Lo: Except Forbes staff article, all news articles on internet have a clear COI, published without any research (Now removed from his page).  LO doesn't qualifies for a Wikipedia page with just one news reference and really his scam to be a billionaire is not enough.  I am sure, a lot of (his) paid editors will jump-in with a KEEP vote, lets UNKEEP them and delete this spam page.  All around news is just about Fake announcements for buying F1 and other things.  Simple, lets keep Wikipedia clean and ask Cunard why he created page by title Calvin Lo (businessman) instead of Calvin Lo?  Fishgrail2 ( talk ) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This request for help from administrators has been answered.  If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.  This looks like an attack AfD directed at Cunard A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard did not edit this article; he just moved the existing article to a different title.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) , A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fishgrail2 , you appear to have misread the article history.   Cunard did not create the article.   Please redact those portions of your nomination statement that imply Cunard did anything Cundard did not do.  ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk | Contribs ) problem solving 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No, he's notable.  Appears to not be what the article claims he is/glosses over it.  He's apparently tried to fudge his way onto a billionaire's list, for example [17] .  Article given here has a brief mention, but I think he's more notable as an, um, "Forbes list enthusiast" and his attempts get on the list, then for anything else.  I won't wade into the discussion of how rich or not rich he is or pretends to be, but there's a story here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Hong Kong ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and procedural close; this article has already been closed as keep in 2 AFDs earlier this year, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvin_Lo_(businessman)_(2nd_nomination) which closed earlier this month.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per Indefensible ’s comment and in reaction to the troubled nomination statement above.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:30, 30 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
Amit Malviya: Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , subject has been covered in headlines of major news organizations such as The Wire (India) , receives regular media coverage [39] [40] in national media as well as byline coverage in international media [41] [42] Pieceofmetalwork ( talk ) 13:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG.  Furthermore nom fails to adduce any actual deletion criteria.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:03, 22 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
Alaska Historical Society: 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:ATD would be a redirect to List of U.S. state historical societies and museums .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It looks like the Alaska Historical Society's activities regularly make state news.  I was able to find a few recent articles about its conferences ( [8] [9] [10] ), and there seems to be plenty more on Newspapers.com ( [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] ).  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a state historical society would be very unusual if it did not receive enough coverage to make it notable, and it seems TheCatalyst31 has found enough to demonstrate notability.  Mccapra ( talk ) 10:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note — Alaska History (journal) was deleted through PROD in 2019.   If this article is kept, that article should be restored for the purposes of merging into this article, as the two topics are closely intertwined.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  State historical societies are highly notable in the United States.  They often maintain the principal state archives .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article needs improvement, but I see sourcing that would allow for a more descriptive stub to be built.  Agree with RadioKAOS' suggestion about the journal as well as they can easily be covered together.  Star Mississippi 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; all state historical societies are individually articled.  Swampyank ( talk ) 16:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject meets the WP:GNG as there are secondary coverage of activities done by the organization.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources found by Catalyst.  Given the age of the organization I would bet there are more newspaper articles on them.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:09, 17 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
Hanoi Medical University: Has had maintenance tags since 2008(!).  Has promotional language.  Perhaps a merge into Hanoi ?  Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Medicine ,  and Vietnam .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] same place as Hanoi University of Pharmacy PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there should be sources in Vietnamese that could be translated.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching for "Đại học Y Hà Nội" results in thousands and thousands of results.  For example https://daibieunhandan.vn/giao-duc--y-te1/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-don-chao-1-349-tan-sinh-vien-trong-le-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-i344460/ , https://viettimes.vn/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-trong-tam-la-chuyen-doi-so-quan-tri-hieu-qua-post170281.html , https://tuoitre.vn/diem-san-truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-tu-19-23-5-diem-20230726215636475.htm .  The subject is a century old and the leading medical school in Vietnam, it should easily meet on notability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We generally keep state-accredited universities.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It does not appear that an adequate WP:BEFORE was done, and while I haven't thoroughly investigated the sourcing, it's pretty inconceivable that qualifying sources do not exist.  The remedy for examples of systemic bias like this is improving the articles, not AfDing them.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:01, 3 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
Jason Schmidt (photographer): Successful career for notable projects, but notability is not inherited.  No suitable WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable.  Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  His website's about page conveniently lists a bunch of significant coverage.  De Stefani, Lucia (2015-11-19).  "See the Photographers Behind Some of the World's Best Images" .  TIME .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  "Caught in the art" .  The Los Angeles Times .  2007-02-25.  p. 67 .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  Rosenberg, Karen (2006-10-12).  "Show and Tell" .  New York Magazine .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  "Portrait of the Artist" (PDF) .  British Journal of Photography : 18–23.  January 2007.  Lombardi, Lisa (July 2001).  "Meet the new Portraitists" .  Photo District News .  20 (7).  Jfire ( talk ) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The references listed above seem to establish that he is an important photographer in his own right (not just by association with famous subjects he has photographed).  There are at least three reputably published books of his work – which is also widely published in periodicals, exhibited and collected.  As such, the article seems like one that should be kept and improved (perhaps by adding some of the above refs).  -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree with above points that the references listed suggest notability and the article could easily be improved.  Editing84 ( talk ) 08:52, 26 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
The Legend of Shelby the Swamp Man: Fails WP:NTV .  Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nom's bang on the money - all primary sources and more out there but nothing to take us past WP:GNG.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep [24] and this [25] , combined with the Common Sense media link in the article, I think we just have enough for notability.  Just barely over the line.  Add this for what it's worth [26] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if the Washington Post source can be used since it seems like it's just a listing of the shows airing for the day.  Spinixster (chat!) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b.  The sources seem ample to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of covering the article subject sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content .  Even the WaPo paragraph reaches that threshold in my opinion -- it's a bare 55 words but can be cited directly for a number of salient facts without running into OR concerns.  As a fallback, if not kept, I'd advocate merging to Ax Men as a new L3 section, since that seems like a reasonable way to cover a marginally-notable spinoff.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:48, 19 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
Shefi Yishai: This article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources Acartonadooopo ( talk ) 16:36, 17 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 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Theatre ,  and Israel .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:MUSICBIO #1.  Sufficient coverage in Hebrew RS such as [28] [29] [30] [31] Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Weak Keep here, WP:GNG is met (barely), though this article certainly needs a cleanup and probably a stubification.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: this says it's the second nomination, of this article, but I can't seem to find the first (maybe there was a mistake?).  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Allan Nonymous by removing information you are reducing the relevance and notoriety of the article.  Acartonadooopo ( talk ) 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clear pass of MUSICBIO #1.  This nomination is the product of failed reasearch.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:29, 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: keep
MV Nantucket: I don't think it is more notable than MV Martha's Vineyard, which doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 20:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Florida ,  and Massachusetts .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: FYI, large ferries usually get their own articles.  That's not to say they should -- just that it's common. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep just as notable as any other ferry of which there are many articles.  Her sister ship not having an article isn't justification for deleting this one.  Perhaps the OP should create an article about the MV Martha's Vineyard to accompany this one.  Murgatroyd49 ( talk ) 08:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with Murgatroyd49 .  A stub can be expanded.  QuincyMorgan ( talk ) 19:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I'm seeing what I presume is significant coverage in Marine Engineering plus some meager coverage in The New York Times .  A bevy of coverage from Martha's Vineyard (particularly when the ferry breaks down) puts it over the GNG threshold for me, but the case is not particularly strong.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as per sources here , just about meets GNG.  – Davey 2010 Talk 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I think another week is warranted with two keeps and two weak keeps.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to have sufficient coverage online although more sources need to be added to the article.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:51, 12 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
Biodiesel in the United Kingdom: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Doesn't look like trivia to me.  If Biodiesel wasn't so long I would have voted to merge it there; as it is, it works best as a standalone.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "Trivia" is not a valid for deletion .  It seems to pass WP:GNG , based on a quick view of significant coverage in reliable sources .  It's part of a series on Biofuels and Energy law .  The current articles on energy , and biodiesel specifically, are getting too long for our core readership to read on their cell phones, so a merge back is not feasible.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Comment Sorry "trivia" was the wrong word - I should have written something like "excessive detail about historical UK taxation".  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Don't see a valid reason for the nomination.  Excessive detail is a content issue.  What Wikipedia policy the article fails has not been enunciated, so the nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  Rupples ( talk ) 21:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not really interested in policies - it fails Wikipedia:Summary style maybe.  But I don’t like the article because it wastes the reader’s time - a lot is not specific to UK and that which is specific to UK I doubt is useful nowadays Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:20, 7 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