hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bill Flowers: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Mr. Flowers does appear to have attracted dedicated coverage in independent, reliable sources on at least a few occasions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ).  Marginal, but I lean keep.  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources noted above by Ganesha811 are enough to pass WP:NBASIC / WP:GNG , as they all have significant coverage of the subject.  ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , me !) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this local artist.  Removed stale link farm of external links.  ABC and the Advocate cover local kerfuffle.  Fails WP:ARTIST -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep*- he seems notable with sources cited above Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per notability.  Mutual United Ltd ( talk ) 22:44, 24 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
Selfie Type: Never launched.  See WP:CRYSTALBALL .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : coverage by BBC and others establishes notability.  Whether it was launched or not is irrelevant.  We have many articles for products and projects that never came to fruition, and there's no policy to remove such articles.  WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply, as this isn't a prediction, it's a description of a past event or idea, which still exists as a notable idea.  Owen× ☎ 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Virtual keyboard - changed per discussion below with nom.  More than enough sources to support this as a section in the merge target.  Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OwenX , I should have clarified Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL , I meant that it is very unlikely that there will be more info about this particular product from Samsung in the near future, I just mentioned crystal ball because it is a nice idea to have "an invisible keyboard", but since this particular product didn't launch, we can't predict that there will be another product implementing this idea, thus I think it shouldn't have a standalone article.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, coverage by BBC and others establishes notability .  Since the only coverage is about announcement, I believe it is not enough for notability: a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point, and agree that such a burst of coverage does not automatically establish notability, and you are correct that we are unlikely to get additional sources about this concept.  My claim is that when you take BBC along with all the other sources, this concept of a product marginally passes our usual threshold of notability.  That said, in an effort to drive to a consensus here, how would you feel about merging this article to Virtual keyboard ?   We certainly have more than enough sources here for a section in the target page.  Owen× ☎ 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OwenX , I think it's a good idea.  I noticed that there is a section "Optical virtual keyboard" which is exactly what Selfie Type was about.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent.  I changed my ! vote above.  If you revise the nomination, we can speedy close this AfD as withdrawn and carry out the merge as agreed.  Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 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
Ronald Mathias: Deleting the article is a good option since I couldn't find any sources myself after extensive research.  Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not a living person so BLP doesn't apply but fails GNG.  GoldRomean ( talk ) 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Entry in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient to determine the subject is notable.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your link you sent here has no sources inside of it so it's difficult to establish whether it's a good source.  Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A biographical dictionary entry written by a well-established academic and published by the National Library of Wales is obviously a reliable source.  Additionally the entry literally lists the sources used by the author.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Chairman of the Welsh Labour Party is obviously notable.  The Dictionary of Welsh Biography , which is maintained by the National Library of Wales, is clearly a reliable source.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - bio in Dictionary of Welsh Biography establishes notability.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 16:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Hold on, deleting this article about the Welsh Labour Party Chair seems unnecessary.  They're a prominent figure, and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, a well-respected source from the National Library of Wales, even includes them!  Waqar 💬 17:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ambivalent .  If someone is prepared to put in the time to add proper sourcing then I would vote for keep.  However, if we just deleted everything that is unsourced then there is nothing left.  If you voted keep, please improve it.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fixed, just needed footnotes.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being picky, surely there must be more than one source.  For certain the honors lists are published and citable.  Also, the External links need fixing as currently they don't connect.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no External links section.  There is a Further reading section, which lists hard copy sources.  If an editor has access to those hard-copy sources, that could be the basis for additional in-line cites.  The article meets the notability requirements.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , inclusion in Dictionary of Welsh Biography meets WP:NBIO under criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:37, 4 July 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 Caution Zone: There was a brief flurry of human-interest news stories when it was built, but nothing indicating actual lasting notability.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and California .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep the HuffPo article is fine, I found this [6] .  Seems to be at GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per article sources // Timothy :: talk 16:51, 24 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
Jayashree Patanekar: Very poorly sourced.  Fails WP:MUSICBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , India ,  and Karnataka .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find any third party independent sources that cover her in detail, therefore she likely fails WP:MUSICBIO .  Qcne (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this Hindu article is substantial coverage here and so is the Mumbai Mirror piece here .  Also she received two  government level awards which is a claim under WP:ANYBIO imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on arguments presented above by Atlantic306 .  Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:40, 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: keep
Miras International School Astana: LibStar ( talk ) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Kazakhstan ,  and France .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:50, 14 March 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!  23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These sources 1 , 2 , 3 give a fair coverage to the subject for notability Atighot ( talk ) 23:29, 22 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: keep
Tata AIA Life: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion .  I would suggest a Redirect to Tata Group which holds a majority stake in the company, as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources.  I did, however, found a lot of routine coverage: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Broc ( talk ) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tata_Group#Affiliated_companies .  Page fails WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources and WP:NCORP .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded.  Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose.  Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies.  Indian English Literature ( talk ) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Indian English Literature we are discussing deletion of this page, whose notability should be evaluated on its own merits and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia.  WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument.  Broc ( talk ) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   There are enough in-depth news articles on a recent ad campaign to justify an article (though I suggest that it be merely a section, not a whole article), [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] , and that's before we get to the 400+ hits on the company's name in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library .   Many of those include routine coverage, but not all of them are restricted to only routine coverage.   I suggest Fortune , as it's a compare-and-contrast (classic secondary source), Economic Times (detailed evaluation of company's risks and opportunities), and maybe E4M (tying their political activity to their overall branding).  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 01:42, 10 June 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!  22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WhatamIdoing.  signed, Rosguill talk 13:23, 20 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
Sanjiao Road station: A redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) seems best.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation ,  and China .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) (for now) Djflem ( talk ) 05:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added some sources which I think are enough to meet GNG.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , further information specific to this station, and sources have now been added.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is better now.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Now meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 19 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: keep
Birtara Union: Looking at the article, I can't say whether it's a place or something related to an organisation.  Hence, doesn't meet WP:GNG , WP:NCORP , WP:NGEO .  I have searched for sources but found none.  The one source cited seems not strong to attain WP:GNG as it doesn't pose significant coverage or verifiable ones that say the topic exist and is notable.  Aside from theses, facts needs to be verifiable.  I will also need a ping when sources are found.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep This article is indeed notable.  It is one of union councils of Bangladesh .  And I believe there should be some good source for it.  We can also see a source about its population in the article.  But the thing is the article isn’t in good state.  We should send it to draft.  If the article creator can improve the article then it can be moved to mainspace.  Mehedi Abedin 07:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I noticed that before nominating it for deletion discussion the article was vandalised by a ip.  The nominator probably nominated it without realizing that.  I restored the article's previous version.  Mehedi Abedin 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Unnecessarily brought to Afd.  It is a union of Bangladesh and its name is found everywhere including search, map, government site and news.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 07:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Just found out it was vandalized.  My bad, will do another time!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  08:40, 22 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
Chemins de fer de Paris à Orléans et du Midi: Sources in french may exist but I'm not seeing them so suggest that any content worth keeping should be merged elsewhere JMWt ( talk ) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France .  JMWt ( talk ) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – It is an important milestone for its two predecessors on the path to nationalisation.   I have added a reference, but I don't have any time at the moment to expand it from super-stub.  Iain Bell ( talk ) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iain Bell.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references and other material from the corresponding article in French.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Bosc source recently added is published by Lulu so may not be reliable but I’m not really seeing a strong case for deletion.  Mccapra ( talk ) 15:38, 15 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
Sister Pelagia: No Russian interwiki.  The article is unreferenced (no footnotes).  Maybe it could be rewritten into an article about a series ( Sister Pleagia series ) based on reviews or analysis of the series (this might be useful: [43] ); sources are more likely to exist in Russian than English.  If the article is not improved, however, due to failures of WP:V , WP:GNG and possible WP:OR , per WP:ATD-R I suggest this is redirected to the article about the author.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Christianity ,  and Russia .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article already is about the series; all three books redirect to this page.  I easily found reviews for all three books.  " A nun with a nose for adventure " (Los Angeles Times, Jan 2007), " Nun has sleuth skills, feminist views " (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2008), " Eye-popping stuff " (The Independent, Nov 2009).  Russian language skills are not necessary.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toughpigs If the books are notable, they merit stand-alone articles, sure, but here we discuss the fictional character.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the books pages redirect to this page.  This is the series page.  It would be silly to delete the series page and then create stand-alone pages for each book.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These are really rather well-known books, translated into several languages, and doubtless with many reviews.  I simply don't believe that a properly-done "BEFORE finds little of use" (did you make the same typo you do above?).   If you think the article should be renamed Sister Pelagia series , do a RM.  At the very least a merger to the author should be proposed.  No valid deletion rationale given, just the usual chaff-storm of non-relevant policy shortcuts.  Johnbod ( talk ) 03:47, 29 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