hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bob Vaughn: Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator : sources have been found and the article has been improved drastically.  Happy to withdraw the nomination since the issues that caused it have been resolved.  -- Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV here .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice find!  (For future reference in my own searching, how did you find that so quickly?)  However, I believe we would need multiple sources like that one to satisfy WP:Athlete .  If you think sources can be found though, I believe you since you edit football topics far more than I do.  Do you want to add the information from your source into the article or should I?  Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Normally when there's a historical topic for deletion from either the US or Canada I search Newspapers.com , and sometimes after that NewspaperArchive .  That was the best source I located, but I saw a lot of other shorter ones so I think this might pass WP:NBASIC - I may expand this later.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nerd1a4i : I performed a decent expansion of the article, and while working on it was able to locate additional in-depth sources here (more than a decade after his career), here , here and here .  Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely yes - looks great now!  Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added some more about his signing and his release off the team.  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG , see above sources and the expansion performed on the article.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 30 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
Rain (American band): GSS 💬 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This band was signed to Dischord Records , a label that has had substantial independent coverage, and had a member who later formed Girls Against Boys .  It's rather plausible that, given those circumstances, this band would have received retrospective attention.  I don't have them on hand, but these sources should probably be consulted in the event they have significant coverage of the band: Andersen, Mark; Jenkins, Mark (2009).  Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital .  New York: Akashic Books.  Azerrad, Michael (2001).  Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground, 1981–1991 .  Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.  Blush, Steven (2001).  American Hardcore: A Tribal History .  Los Angeles: Feral House.  -- Chubbles ( talk ) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a tricky subject to find sources for - due to both the generic band name, and the age since they were active.   I have added 4 citations to non-trivial independent coverage, all from reliable sources.   I am leaning keep as a result; they may have have been short-lived but their music does appear to have significance, and sustained impact - with independent commentary such as " La Vache Qui Rit is both aesthetically and historically valuable " ( [1] ), and " Songs like “Worlds at War” and “That Time of Year” stood alongside the best of their peers " ( [2] ).   It's nearly 40 years since this band was active, so on current evidence we should be able to presume notability - as there was likely greater coverage in the 1980s we cannot access.    (Note - I have not managed to access the books above mentioned by Chubbles ).  Resonant Dis tor tion 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sourcing found.  There is evidence that more should be presumed to exist offline.  Likely meets WP:NBAND .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the work of the subsequent ! voters, I will move to keep the article.  Chubbles ( talk ) 00:56, 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
Receiver of the Metropolitan Police: This has been tagged since 2008, with little to no improvements made.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Considering that many of them have articles can be useful per WP:LISTPURP-NAV .  -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Extremely notable position with plenty of available sources. Mostly in print, obviously, given it was abolished in 2000 and lost a lot of its standing after 1968. But before that, equal in status to the Commissioner. Easily meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merits a full 29-page chapter in John Moylan's definitive 1929 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police , plus sections in pretty much every other book about the history of the Met.  As I said, relying on online sources for earlier topics is not the best idea.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Interesting article about a significant organisation with adequate WP:RS Lyndaship ( talk ) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please address the offline sources mentioned above.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , nothing wrong with off-line sources, and the article is now well-referenced.  Additionally, since the majority of holders of this post are of themselves notable, this article would have been a valid navigational list even without sourcing.  But it's much better as a properly referenced article.  Elemimele ( talk ) 13:07, 31 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
Blockout 2024: Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Adequately covered trends have a place on Wikipedia, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TikTok Dabloons .  No argument was provided for why it is irrelevant.  The article sources its contextualization and the topic itself.  Further references can still be added [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] .  Per WP:GNG , it should be kept.  XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 14:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As the article creator, I went through extra effort to research and include enough references from reputable outlets to demonstrate it easily passes the general notability guideline .  The sources that are reliable and constitute WP:SIGCOV include National Public Radio, Yahoo News, and the Miami Herald, among others.  It is difficult to take this AfD in good faith when it does not reference any policy basis for the nomination.  - Fuzheado | Talk 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  No actual reasoning for this article to be deleted has been given.  Cortador ( talk ) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ongoing trend/news event, but already documented by entertainment and non-entertainment websites.  -- Apoxyomenus ( talk ) 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pretty ridiculous to vote for the deletion of a massive protest movement that significantly impacted the social media presence of dozens of celebrities.  Especially considering a political climate that refuses to acknowledge the protests as legitimate and actively contributes to censuring folks who participate.  Should #MeToo have been considered a random twitter hashtag?  <IP removed> 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Keep This is a significant ongoing protest movement and no adequate reason has been given for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0a:ef40:61c:2c01:ddfc:1250:79c0:64d ( talk ) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Meets WP:GNG .  S5A-0043 Talk 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Since this AfD was created, even more reliable sources have published stories about this, essentially making this a WP:SNOW situation.  Might Jjj1238 be willing to kindly withdraw the nomination so that we can close this?  Sources: Al Jazeera , Newsweek , Buzzfeed , Deseret News , NBC News , NBC Today.com , Jerusalem Post , South China Morning Post , Times of India , et al.  - Fuzheado | Talk 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it covers a relevant protest movement linked to a conflict that is redefining the whole international system.  185.120.125.4 ( talk ) 01:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is notable and reliably sourced.  WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Topic properly covered in the media.  I would also suggest the nomination be withdrawn.  Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 08:46, 16 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
Matt Iacopelli: Joeykai ( talk ) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : American Hockey League player - you don't get much higher than that within ice hockey.  Probably the third best league in the world.  The nomination is not the third best in the world, though, it consists of a single word (plus one capital-letter abbreviation) which doesn't cast any light on the state of the article or its sourcing.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I am finding coverage, as might be expected for a USHL First Team All Star, even if his pro career hasn't amounted to much.  Rlendog ( talk ) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rlendog.  The Kip 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per expansion, and per the nomination rationale, which is unfulfilling to put it that way.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rlendog, expanding, and doesn't seem to fail GNG Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now it's been expanded easily shows hey pass WP:GNG KylieTastic ( talk ) 13:01, 4 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
Christian Brückner: 112.204.206.165 ( talk ) 10:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany .  Primefac ( talk ) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note : filing requested in Special:Diff/1156736989 (copied verbatim above), quick check shows this is not entirely a specious request.  Primefac ( talk ) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : Poor article, but according to de:Christian Brückner , he meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG . -- Dewritech ( talk ) 12:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dewritech. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 22:43, 31 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
John Richard Sheaffer: Created by an SPA, also.  BD2412 T 02:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  BD2412 T 02:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep analog/digital and spelling issue here I think.  Likely meets WP:BIO though likely some copyediting is necessary.  Seems some promising sigcov here via the EPA, I'm almost sure this is the same person despite the (common) spelling error: "Land Disposal of Wastewater: A Land Use Case Study" [43] [44] Here's some barely readable coverage that seems to cover some principles as well as citing a statement to a subcommittee [45] Seems to be some traction on subject's book [46] 14 citations is pretty high for a 1983 work.  This seems to demonstrate subject's published participation in a conference, which may lead to futher citations, probably need a proper citation index for that [47] — siro χ o 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think, he's used as the intro to an editorial in the journal Groundwater [48] , got an obituary in the Chicago Tribune [49] and attention from the Washington Post [50] .  The article isn't great, it needs cleaning up, but I think the man has made sufficient impact to be included.  Elemimele ( talk ) 06:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some more evidence for WP:ACADEMIC : "Encouraging wise use of floodplains with market-based incentives" has 19 citations, "Cities under water: A comparative evaluation of ten cities' efforts to manage floodplain land use" has seemingly over 100.  — siro χ o 08:41, 5 July 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!  02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by Elemimele and siroxo.  Probably passes NACADEMIC too, but I think we're fine with WP:NBASIC here.  We've got a staff-written obit in the Chicago Trib, a full-length profile in the Washington Post, and via the excruciating NEPIS interface we also have this EPA report containing several pages on his wastewater disposal innovations (and others as linked above).  All of these appear to be reliable, independent of the subject and to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all the digging, researching and 'splaining by others above. I didn't even have to dig up any refs myself this time -- just opine on others' fine work.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:21, 14 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
28th Guam Legislature: Redivy ( talk ) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Redivy ( talk ) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Articles like these are always notable.  There is always going to be coverage of legislative sessions (as can be seen with [ this query on newspapers.com, for instance) for WP:GNG purposes; I'd also argue these articles pass WP:NLIST too as a list of a group of notable people (Guam legislators pass WP:NPOL ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Curbon7.  There's a decent amount of coverage of the activities of this legislature, like others in different localities.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's possible this isn't notable on sourcing grounds, but that argument hasn't been made, and legislatures are almost always notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:06, 12 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
Hizon–Ocampo House: GNews, GScholar, Gbooks and GNews Archives turns out negative results.  Google turned a 2013 website whose text was lifted from the 2011 iteration of this article -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Lenticel ( talk ) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not really decisive but I also found this and this , but enough that I don’t feel comfortable with deleting.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Several structures in the San Fernando Heritage District have been marked by the National Historical Institute (now known as the National Historical Commission of the Philippines) as heritage houses, because of the architectural significance and also their current state of preservation.  This is one of them.  Djflem ( talk ) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Filipino heritage listing is a bit confusing, but this would suggest that it is heritage listed .  It therefore meets WP:GEOFEAT .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks...#1044 Djflem ( talk ) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT per Djflem's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:55, 12 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
Muhammad Qasim Sadiq: BEFORE hasn't turned up anything, though sources may be available in other languages.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Islam ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I am surprised that even after the first deletion discussions which closed as Keep it was again tagged for deletion discussion.  These are some references I would like to mention: [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] Kkb091 ( talk ) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Seems to me Kkb091 has provided many additional sources shown above.  Also, today I looked and saw that he has worked on the article and further improved it, so there are no lack of sources any more at the article for notability.  This Sufi sheikh (1845 - 1942) has a large number of followers in Pakistan.  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 16:41, 13 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
SwiftUI: Was draftified in hopes of improvement, then moved back by an editor without improvement.  Onel 5969 TT me 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Had many books written about it, including Wiley , Springer , Packt Publishing (programming-focused) and others.  Also received SIGCOV in tech news outlets alone: [18] [19] .  DFlhb ( talk ) 02:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As DFlhb mentioned, this software is used in independent instructional manuals giving it presumed notability following WP:NSOFT .  WP:NEGLECT is not a strong rationale for deletion.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 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
Libyan Post Telecommunications & Information Technology Company: ~ T P W 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The corresponding article in Arabic has multiple references.  This is the parent company of a national postal administration and of some telecommunications carriers, so it can be expected to be notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We're not deleting an article about Libya's major telecommunications and postal authority, and two words=a really bad rationale.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but draftify if no citations or sources are added.  It is certainly notable enough but needs verification.  ww2censor ( talk ) 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs to be updated with sources .  -- Devoke water 14:20, 29 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