hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Tim Ocel: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MILL .   The article asserts that he has worked steadily in the theatre, first as a stage manager and now as a director, but not all stage directors are notable.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to have some renown in various theater pieces [27] , [28] and [29] , in the USA and Ireland.  These aren't extensive coverage, but seem to be well-known.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep managed to find several sources through a simple Google search, [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] .  Several sources on Google Books, including multiple mentions in With Our Good Will 30 Years of Shakespeare in Idaho , Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 , and A Directory of Shakespeare in Performance Since 1991 Volume 3, USA and Canada , and several sources on Google Scholar.  GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 01:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For more input on the sources presented above...  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per GoldenBootWizard276 and Oaktree b .  Please perform more thorough WP:Before prior to nominations Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Several scholarly sources mention Ocel and analyze his work.  His productions have also been reviewed in several publications.  This article needs better sourcing, but the subject definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:21, 21 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
Club Med Ria Bintan: Insufficient independent significant coverage.  Uhooep ( talk ) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appropriately sourced, meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Hotels [ reply ] Keep .  Well sourced and clearly notable.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal 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
Bob Woodward (actor): Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , California ,  and Oklahoma .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources.   From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films.  Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films.  FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage.  The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era keeps coming up.  The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all  five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for.  Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television.  Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing.  — Maile ( talk ) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR.   He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr.  , and had named roles in large number of films.   He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others.   He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame.  Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:03, 11 October 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!  23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pass in WP:NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:46, 19 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
Viktor Bolkhovsky: Way more than sufficient to show WP:NBIO .  Broc ( talk ) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia .  Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  The sources on this are good.  For a Russian crime topic, probably above average.  As far as I can see, everything is cited.  What?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly satisfies WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:26, 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
Russian interference in European politics: The page contains way too many quotations, close paraphrasing and improper use of a non-free source, and overall fails WP:GNG .  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Czech Republic ,  and Russia .  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's been talk of Russian influence at the European Parliament.  I've found a few sources in French [1] , [2] , [3] .  Perhaps we need to re-work the article, but this is notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : What, the growing menace of the tyrannical onslaught of Russian destruction potentially threatening all of Europe is not notable?  70.26.38.47 ( talk ) 02:27, 11 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!  23:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : quite clearly there are multiple independent reports of this topic, as well as from primary sources such as the European Parliament [4] .  Although sourcing should be improved, needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion.  C 679 13:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b and Cloudz679.  There's enough WP:RS -based coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:15, 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: keep
Eifo HaYeled: Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Was a notable band in Israeli music history.  Article has been spruced up, info added, cats added, sources added. -- Geewhiz ( talk ) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : it could always be improved further but I'd say the article qualifies as being decent enough now. Not sure if the redlinks over individual band members are necessary though. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Famous Israeli band that does not fail WP:NBAND or WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination.  Somehow it was tagged for notability and I have removed that as currently debated and also baseless.  This nomination is an obvious before failure.  It was created 3 minutes after the previous, unrelated nomination.  gidonb ( talk ) 11:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One of the most conspicuous bands in Israeli music history, covered by countless comprehensive articles in major media Israeli outlets.  Tzahy ( talk ) 19:17, 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
Kelly Wanser: I looked for others on google and only found podcasts and promotional interviews, some with self-admitted friends of her.  Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Businesspeople , Women ,  and United States of America .  Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with all respect to the nominator, there are a number of serious books that dedicate coverage to Wanser, both positive and negative.  All one has to do is to click the "Books" link in the Find Sources section on this very page.  I agree that much of that information needs to be added to the subject's article, but a lack of effort on editors' part (so far) to improve this article is not a very good reason for deletion.  Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2022, IEEE Spectrum, an engineering magazine that's been around 60 years, conducted an in-depth interview with her, which wasn't used as a source.  I added it.  Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has good RS online.  Subject is notable enough.  Adhi2004 ( talk ) 10:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As is mentioned there is coverage in a number of books- this coverage also spans a number of years, which also suggests they are notable enough.  Editing84 ( talk ) 09:40, 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
23rd Street viaduct: Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Missouri .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to West Bottoms , as a feature of that neighborhood.  BD2412 T 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing ! vote due to improvements.  No longer a clear case for merging.  BD2412 T 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even knowing that it was constructed by Kansas City Structural Steel Inc. I could not turn up even a basic source for, say, the construction date or structural type.   I cannot find any in-depth documentation of this bridge.   The Topeka one by the same name, some.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Uncle G The bridge seems like it was built before one of the approaches was ready.  It's a little hard to trace.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just dumped 17 references into this from Kansas City newspapers, and someone a bit more familiar with this area will probably do a better job than I did.  Note: "West Kansas Avenue Bridge" is another structure (also in need of article help).  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep excellent work by Sammie Brie in expanding the article.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Good work, Sammi.  @ Boleyn and BD2412 : opinions on Sammi's sources?  Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly, it seems a bit WP:ROUTINE for reporting on the lifespan of a bridge, but the fact that there was at least one reported dispute about its intended use shifts me out of thinking that this is a clear case for merging.  BD2412 T 15:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a case of WP:HEY .  Seems to meet WP:GNG now.  Great work by Sammi in improving the article.  S5A-0043 Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources added show this easily meets the GNG.  Great work by all improving this one.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:07, 28 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
Cheon Seong-hoon: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   The only two references are database type entries on web sites.   The is reflected in article content which is "stats only" plus one sentence which says he plays and who for.  North8000 ( talk ) 20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and South Korea .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future.  Best source I can find is this - there should be something in Korean...  Giant Snowman 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show (AGFing) notability.  Giant Snowman 11:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  Agree that the article is quite new and crude, but not hopeless.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , @ Suitskvarts : , I found [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , among many more Korean sources.  Young player witj pngping career with fully pro appearances and played for Bundesliga club.  Article needs improvement, not deletiom.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Player with an ongoing career, played for relevant clubs, youth national team, passes on the WP:GNG criteria.  Svartner ( talk ) 21:46, 26 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!  21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - thanks to the sources found by Das osmnezz which show a clear GNG pass.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:40, 28 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: keep
Frateschi: Running the name of the company through Google News results in a handful of references to an unrelated company.  Wolfson5 ( talk ) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Wolfson5 ( talk ) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Couldn't find anything in English in a WP:BEFORE , and the only stuff I could find in Portuguese/Brazil are passing mentions that the model trains made by the company were used in some local model train shows [28] [29] .  Other than that, couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NCORP .  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 19:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a contested prod.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The only model railway manufacturer in Latin America, has been going for 65 years and the article on Portuguese Wikipedia is more substantial.  Plenty of Google hits if you search under the Portuguese name.  I think this passes the notability threshold.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  I found additional coverage in the US specialty magazine Model Railroad News .  gidonb ( talk ) 01:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp and gidonb .  Svartner ( talk ) 22:29, 29 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: keep
2023 Kansas City mayoral election: Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and this article is portraying that as it has very little news coverage as is.  The article has not established individual any notability or verifiability and has no reason to be on the mainspace.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Election has significant coverage from the Kansas City Star and other publications.  It's a verified upcoming event.  The current status of the article is not what deletion debates hinge on.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the coverage?  It's not on the article.  An article needs to be in draft status if it is not complete or not notable at this time.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 02:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not making a ! vote just yet, but it would be worth re-reading WP:NEXIST .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage is out there.  You didn't WP:BEFORE , did you?  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided.   The suggestion by the nom that it is not verifiable that there will be a mayoral election in Kansas City in November 2023 is ludicrous.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 16:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfies WP:CHRYSTAL , with WP:RS to pass the WP:GNG .  As above, WP:NEXIST .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
What Will Fat Cat Sit On?: Talk!  22:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Two reviews by reliable publications and one by a public library (all three are already in the article) add up to notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG from the sources already present in the article.  pburka ( talk ) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Aside from the reviews already in the article, there is also this one from Kirkus Reviews .  All together, this is a pass of WP:NBOOK .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - WP:NB — Maile ( talk ) 00:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG Linda ( talk ... stalk! ) 00:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : three national-level sources giving WP:SIGCOV in article: Publishers Weekly might be dubious as it links to pages selling the book (and so presumably earns commission), but see also this review in School Library Journal .  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note Nominator has been checkuser blocked. -- Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NBOOK and clearly has enough sources.  Archrogue ( talk ) 17:08, 26 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