hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach : He coached India for 33 games ever, which is not a lot by general coaching standards, and nothing in this article explains why that era was so exceptional that it needs a separate article, rather than just being a couple of paragraphs in the main article Kapil Dev#National coach .  Note: the fact that it's a GA is not a reason to keep, since the GA status is from 2007 and being challenged at a GAR , and also good article from 2007 does not imply notable in 2023.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and India .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - debatable how much of this article (which is an unnecessary WP:CFORK, agreed) should be kept for the Kapil Dev main article but that's up to the editor who wants to merge.  I think there are maybe three or four good paragraphs to flesh out the Kapil Dev article.  If anything, a new article could be created from the match-fixing and betting racket.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Kapil Dev : Seems overly detailed for such a small bit of playing time/coaching time.  Could be a brief section under a bribery allegations in the main bio article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very selective merge seems appropriate here.  If, indeed, there's anything that needs merging.  We certainly don't need a standalone article here and I wouldn't be particularly opposed to a delete outcome Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Kapil Dev : Inappropriate fork.  Anything salvageable should be merged.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge with Kapil Dev Unnecessary content fork, however there is some information here that could be merged to the parent article.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge .  This seems to be the most appropriate outcome here.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively with Kapil Dev ; noting here that I just delisted it as GA.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 20 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: merge
Ndadaye Day : All I can find on this topic are brief mentions such as this , which note that this is a Burundian national holiday to commemorate the death of Melchior Ndadaye , something which is already encapsulated by a single sentence on the Ndadaye article.  I do not see how this subject is independently notable or that this article a necessary fork owing to the amount of content available.  - Indy beetle ( talk ) 07:56, 13 December 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 December 13 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As said above this doesn't need to be an standalone article.  killer bee 08:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant content into the Melchior Ndadaye entry.  I found two book citations and included them in the entry, but they are passing mentions and insufficient to have this holiday clear notability guidelines.  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Africa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Melchior Ndadaye : Put a section about the day on the target and redirect this one there.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:51, 16 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: merge
Sleeve coupling : Unsourced dictdef, so perhaps a candidate for Wiktionary.  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the picture into coupling and redirect, the rest of the material is already duplicated there.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Coupling#Sleeve,_box,_or_muff where it is described.  This topic might be notable; I have not checked.  But as it it is, it is a near duplicate of the target section and it is best to merge the helpful diagram and redirect.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:08, 11 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: merge
Fairy-Max : QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software .  QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to XBoard .  Seems to be verified here , and is mentioned at target.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting .  I suggest merging or redirecting.  -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 14:03, 15 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: merge
Chester Cheetah: Owen× ☎ 06:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article's sources demonstrate notability, and the nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 07:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale.  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Comics and animation ,  and Advertising .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16.  NatwonTSG2 ( talk ) 13:20, 22 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: speedy keep
Sawani (company): Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia .  Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Kuchinotsu No. 37: The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars.  It was tagged for notability in September this year.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I think you can just speedy delete it under WP:G7 .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Biology ,  and Japan .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Deltaspace42 : I am unsure if it is notable or not.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 'Encore' mandarin : if you're not sure about notability, let's just redirect the page to the more notable of its parents, where it is already mentioned.  This can always be undone by any editor, if notability becomes clearer.  Owen× ☎ 13:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there's notability here.  I did a Google Scholar search and turned up quite a few mentions.  [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] among others.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to these articles.  My Japanese isn't quite good enough for academic uses, but searching for "津之望 つののぞみ" brings up numerous articles.  DCsansei ( talk ) 14:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DCsansei , Are you sure that 'Tsunonozomi' is the same as Kuchinotsu No.37?  I may withdraw this AfD nomination.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I believe sufficient sources have been found to prove this cultivar's notability.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 22:52, 4 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: speedy keep
Marco Vannini: Fails the general and professor-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators ,  and Italy .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the previous deletion discussion , which decided that he met the WP:PROF notability criteria.  Jahaza ( talk ) 17:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the previous AfD and its consensus that he passes WP:PROF#C1 .  Well cited for a zoologist.  Nothing has changed since the previous quite-recent AfD, and this new one does not provide any reason to overturn the previous decision.  Re "Tagged for notability since 2010": the problem here is not with the article, it is with the editors who failed to remove the notability tag during the previous AfD, as there is no need for a notability tag once an AfD has been started to settle the notability of its article.  I have gone ahead and removed the tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs ) Indeed.  I withdraw the nomination.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 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: speedy keep
Leonard J. Waks: There is only one source in the entire article, and it is rife with WP:NOR .  There have been a large amount of additions by WP:SPAs and possible WP:COI IPs/editors.  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy ,  and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Distinguished professorship; Lifetime achievement award from John Dewey Society ; H-index of 28; reviews of his books [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] .  Meets WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  Netherzone ( talk ) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clear pass of WP:Prof as above.  Nominator needs to study WP:Before .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .   I'm not sure about the distinguished professorship, but citation numbers look like they might be a pass of WP:NPROF C1 in a low citation field; I also take the John Dewey Society activity somewhat seriously.   A cursorary search found several reviews [42] [43] [44] [45] of his books, which could yield a solid WP:NAUTHOR .   I trimmed the indiscriminate list of journal articles, and more trimming is likely needed, but as usual, WP:DINC .  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The GS citations look healthy for a low-citation area (264,153,136,103,74), all single authored, with a fairly slow drop off thereafter.  Reviews of the subject's several books with major publishers have also been presented.  Meets WP:PROF and AUTHOR.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per editors above who know what they are talking about.  Johnbod ( talk ) 21:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MAJORITY is not an argument, I'm afraid.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Phooey!  But since, for once, the editors who don't know what they are talking about haven't turned out, further discussion is unnecessary.  Johnbod ( talk ) 15:06, 18 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: speedy keep
Blood Debts: Significant coverage from reliable sources about the film is scarce, if existent at all.  Davest3r08 (^ _ ^) ( t a l k ) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of SIGCOV on the film actually exists, my bad.  Keep .  Davest3r08 (^ _ ^) ( t a l k ) 11:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SICGOV from reliable sources is existent and I added some to the page.  See for yourself.  Keep . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has at least two reviews, easily meets WP:NFILM .  Kailash29792 (talk) 11:03, 15 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: speedy keep
Sebastian Gertz: Almost all the sources cited are either primary/non-independent.  The only exception is a single review of Gertz's book which is not sufficient by itself to establish notability.  WJ94 ( talk ) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: I've just noticed that there's a second review cited in the article for a second book.  Nevertheless, I still don't think that having authored two books each with a single review (on a website which seems to review a lot of classics books) is sufficient for GNG/NSCHOLAR/NAUTHOR.  WJ94 ( talk ) 14:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Philosophy .  WJ94 ( talk ) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are many more reviews than just the ones appearing in the as-nominated article; did the nominator perform any WP:BEFORE searches?  I found 11 reviews of four books.  I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding those sources.  I did perform a WP:BEFORE search for sources, but clearly not thoroughly enough.  I am happy to withdraw this nomination.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:50, 16 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: speedy keep
Protégé (restaurant): The only new thing I've found about this restaurant is that it was founded by French Laundry alumni.  Other than that, and possessing Michelin stars, I do not see how this restaurant can be notable.  [ reply ] See WP:MILL and WP:ORGDEPTH .  If sources can be found to attest to the notability of this restaurant, this would be good, otherwise, the article may have to be deleted.  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Business .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This is another obvious keep per GNG by a nominator who has jumped to AfD unnecessarily multiple times now.  Nominator says they "[could not] find any sources attesting to this restaurant's notability" when completing WP:BEFORE, yet (from a simple Google search) I was able to very quickly and easily find plenty of in-depth coverage specifically focused on the restaurant and published by independent and reliable sources.  The article has 10+ sources and should be expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Another Believer .  I think you should have expanded the article from the get-go.  It seems as if people have to nominate your articles for deletion to get the article to have proper content.  Creating one-sentence articles is not enough; please aim to expand on the more prior to moving them into the article space.  People have previously advised you on this before and I ask that you take this into account.  Also, please refrain from personal attacks and observe proper AfD etiquette.  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AFD : "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I propose Speedy keep and close . --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  I think once an admin passes by they can do it.  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:07, 1 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: speedy keep
The Phoenix (novel): WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator in light of the sources identified by other editors below.  WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany .  WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed it, here , and the New York Times did, here .  The NYT review is very short, though, so I am not ready to say that the book passes point 1 of WP:NBOOK without a bit more being found.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to this article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , the novel was an "international success" that been published in thirteen countries and became a bestseller in Italy and the United States.  Universal Studios had even once secured the film rights to the novel for a film adaptation.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found a review in Die Welt [1] , as well as an interview with the author's father in Der Spiegel [2] , which touches on the book.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 04:44, 17 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: speedy keep
Roshni Kapoor: There is only some passing mention in some film reviews.  The language used to write the article gives the impression that this is a likely attempt to promote the subject.  Thesixserra ( talk ) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and India .  Thesixserra ( talk ) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 13 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!  06:26, 20 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: speedy keep
Out-of-Sync: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing on Newspapers.com .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found only one review from TV Guide .   Needs two or more reviews to be eligible per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another review at Radio Times [24] Donald D23 talk to me 12:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per Donaldd23’s contribution.    My humble apologies.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 14:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Film Creator , no apology necessary!  AfD's all about finding the right outcome, not keeping score.  I'm glad people like yourself and @ Donaldd23are looking at these under-referenced articles to fix or delete them.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:55, 11 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: speedy keep