hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Lucy Marinkovich : Google news doesn't reveal much in-depth.  LibStar ( talk ) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Dance ,  and New Zealand .  LibStar ( talk ) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources in the article are limited, but I've found coverage in the Otago Daily Times and Dominion Post about her receiving the Harriet Friedlander New York Residency, which is one of New Zealand's most valuable artists' residencies, and a decent amount of reviews of and coverage of her work (eg in the Dominion Post and The Press ).  Via Proquest there is also this 2011 article in the Press which describes her as the "star of this year's Footnote Dance programme, Made in New Zealand 2011".  I consider she meets WP:GNG , and arguably point 1 of WP:ANYBIO with the Harriet Friedlander residency.  I'll look to expand/improve the article over the next few days.  Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per above comment, I see multiple news stories covering her work.  David Palmer // cloventt ( talk ) 08:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I consider Marinkovich is notable and the criteria are better met with the recent expansions.  I will also look to expand and demonstrate this in the article.  Pakoire ( talk ) 09:06, 29 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
The Department of Mad Scientists : No sources.  Two ELs that are not WP:IS .  Fails WP:GNG .  An WP:ATD would be to redirect to Michael Belfiore .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Engineering , Technology ,  and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to have had book reviews/ discussions [17] and [18] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete Keep While Oaktree b has, indeed, found coverage (the NYT review is a bit rambling but is nevertheless a review - the Atlantic piece references the book but is not - AFAICS - dedicated to it), it's not quite enough.  There's this NPR interview but it is an interview, which doesn't really help us with WP:GNG.  Frankly, I'm amazed you could write a book about DARPA and NOT get way bigger coverage than this - it's an amazing and huge subject (they invented the Internet, right?).  Anyone roots out one more review and I'm team 'keep' but right now I can't find it and the article is a miserable little thing that has been miserable for too long.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does this help [19] ?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whole bunch turn up in Gscholar using the link above.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the following reviews: Saletan, William (24 December 2009).  "The Body Electric" .  New York Times .  Tatu, Robin (January 2010).  "Crucible of Innovation" .  ASEE Prism .  19 (5): 50.  Simonite, Tom (2009).  "Review: The Department of Mad Scientists by Michael Belfiore".  New Scientist .  204 : 56.  doi : 10.1016/S0262-4079(09)62944-4 .  ISSN 0262-4079 .  Pitt, David (2009).  "The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs (Book review)".  Booklist .  106 (4).  American Library Association: 8.  ISSN 0006-7385 .  The last of these is rather short, but throwing it into the pile probably doesn't hurt.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:31, 21 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
John Yarbrough : Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two JYs, each would merit a redirect, no clear PT, so a dab page is needed.  Pam D 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it doesn't meet any of those criteria.  It disambiguates two pages.  Both entries meet [MOS:DABMENTION]].  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Boleyn : I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "any of those criteria."  I only cited one criterion, WP:G14 .  The page in question "disambiguate[s] zero extant Wikipedia pages."  There is no Wikipedia article for either of the John Yarbroughs that it disambiguates.  It's pretty straightforward.  -- Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 19:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Denniscabrams , there are3 parts to the G14 criteria.  There are 2 extant WP pages here - it doesn't mean that they need to have their own articles, with two entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL .  Boleyn ( talk ) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I don't see how this disambiguation page serves the project as it doesn't link to any existing Wikipedia articles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added Jon Yarbrough, American billionaire, the founder of Video Gaming Technologies.  It has been my experience at DABS, that names don't have to be spelled exactly alike.  That's one of the purposes of dabs, to clarify with variations on spellings of a name.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Worthwhile disambig page.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 5 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
University of Sydney School of Physics : Probably fails WP:GNG as it stands, unless it can be expanded.  Uhooep ( talk ) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Science ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Has now been significantly expanded thanks to User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard .  ITBF ( talk ) 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY , thanks to User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard .  Cabrils ( talk ) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY after some good work by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 02:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as explained by others Ldm1954 ( talk ) 17:38, 2 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
Abass Ibrahim : 05:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Saudi Arabia .  PARVAGE talk!  05:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Before nomination, I have considered the discussion of first AfD , Three sources were mentioned there, 1 , 2 and 3 .  But those don't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.parvage ( talk • contribs ) 06:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep The sources in the previous AfD aren't the best, but I think they're enough to pass WP:GNG .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:38, 22 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!  04:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep per prior AFD and nominator's uncertain motivations.  I am not doing a BEFORE for such a nomination.  — siro χ o 10:32, 24 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
Sam Osman : Boleyn ( talk ) 10:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors , Women , Sudan , Lebanon , England ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - she has changed her name to Sam Hepburn and written more books since the one book that had been identified in the article at the time of the nomination.  I am continuing to conduct research, but have been able to add a review from The Telegraph , and generally expand the article.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with the expansions I made, there appears to be some support for WP:AUTHOR #3 notability based on reviews for her children's/young adult novels.  Her debut novel was reviewed in the Financial Times , The Telegraph , and The School Librarian , and apparently The Times or Times Literary Supplement (the link is not working in the article, or from her archived website, and only an abstract is available on ProQuest); another novel has reviews from The School Librarian and BookTrust , and another novel is reviewed by The School Librarian .  As to her later works, I did not find reviews to support notability, and none are listed on her official website.  There is also a source she wrote on Writing.ie , which includes reference to a news article and supports some biographical information; I have not yet searched for coverage of her journalism/documentary filmmaking career, but there may be further sources available.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems ok with the explanation given above.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Close call, but agree with explanation the article meets requirements and should stay.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:41, 29 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
John E. Warriner : While well-regarded by some in his field, only the obit actually focuses on the subject.  While Warriner's textbook might be notable, Warriner as an author is probably not.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Michigan .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Since that is clearly the case here, the burden of overcoming the presumption of notability lies with the editor disputing it.  In other words, the onus is on the nominator to explain why, in his view, the subject is not notable.   Finally, quoting from WP:NAUTHOR : "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."  The article makes such a claim.   Curiously the nominator appears even to stipulate that the first prong of WP:NAUTHOR is met ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers") with the statement "While well-regarded by some in his field" Tito Omburo ( talk ) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A New York Times obituary (not paid death notice) is by itself a strong indicator of GNG notability, and this appears to be one of those rare cases where an academic is notable through WP:PROF#C4 as well (judging by the Times pull quote "one of the best selling series in textbook publishing history".  We would need published reviews for a third notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR , but that seems plausible as well.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Gosh, it's been a while since we've had a WP:PROF#C4 case, but it looks like this qualifies.  And the reviews plus the Times obit add up to a WP:AUTHOR pass, I'd say.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seems a clear pass of GNG & AUTHOR based on material now present in the article.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article as it was prior to nomination already demonstrated notability.  The additional refs just reinforce this.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets GNG and NAUTHOR. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Author .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:27, 29 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
List of ESPN Radio personalities : Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Sports ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [ [16] ], [ [17] ], [ [18] ], and [ [19] ].  I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These links falls under WP:ROUTINE , more like another announcments of lineups.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm not sure the nom did a proper WP:BEFORE search because from what I'm seeing this seems to pass WP:NLIST based on some searching.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST.  Frank Anchor 19:00, 21 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
Manly pride jersey player boycott : 12 of the 13 sources are from when the event happened in July 2022.  Already mentioned in 2022 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Poor nomination ignoring WP:BEFORE .  In fact, there has been coverage of this event this year as well, demonstrating its lasting significance as future boycotts get compared to it: e.g. Flyers’ Ivan Provorov boycotts Pride Night fixture, cites religion ( news.com.au , January 2023) and Poll reveals landslide of NRL bosses oppose league Pride Round ( Nine's Wide World of Sports , February 2023).  St Anselm ( talk ) 02:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per StAnselm - this incident definitely had ramifications beyond when it happened, e.g. the NRL was also excluded from Mardi Gras in 2023 as a result I think?  Deus et lex ( talk ) 08:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a source regarding the claim that this incident resulted in exclusion from Mardi Gras?  LibStar ( talk ) 09:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Easy to find: ‘Not gay enough’: Mardi Gras snubs NRL float following Manly’s rainbow jersey fiasco .  St Anselm ( talk ) 14:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Australia–Peru relations : (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough  to qualify for WP:CSD G4.)  Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply.  Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not the same as the 2010 version.   This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014.   It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki.  Styx ( talk ) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that relations exist is not enough to justify existence of a stand alone article.  And there are not enough sources.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Australia ,  and Peru .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 4 November 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!  07:53, 11 November 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!  06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete There are some relations like a free trade agreement.  However, article is based mainly on primary sources hence my weak delete ! vote.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep there are things which we can find about that in Google, article needs to be improved.  Dawid2009 ( talk ) 07:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : OECD and other non Peru/Australian governmental coverage should be considered reliable and independent sigcov regarding the relatively recent Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and bilateral PAFTA (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement).  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 13:50, 2 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
The Beachcomber (TV series) : aaronneallucas ( talk ) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Older show from 60's but was able to find some sources.  News-Journal , The Palm Beach Post .  I'd say passes GNG.  WikiVirus C (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I originally removed the PROD because I found sources at newspapers.com, but I don't have access to clip them.  Luckily WikiVirusC was able to access some and list above.  Donald D23 talk to me 01:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – for better or worse, the community has long decided that all television series are notable.  — Trey Maturin ™ 16:02, 19 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
Teatro Metropólitan : Only source that could potentially be described as RS is [38] , all others are self-published sources, or IMDb (and passing mention to boot).  Fermiboson ( talk ) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Mexico .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Plenty of coverage.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not attempting to change your opinion, but would you mind providing some of that?  It would be beneficial if you, me, or some other editor could use them to improve the article rather than delete it.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 12:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per above.  63.115.34.165 ( talk ) 08:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Historic theater, here [39] and [40] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some mentions of the upgrade in the last few decades [41] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 10 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