hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
David Mindich: Every source is a passing mention, if not a single quote from Mindich.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Journalism ,  and News media .  ben ǝʇᴉɯ 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Pennsylvania ,  and Vermont .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Enough published reviews of multiple books (now added to the article) for a pass of WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per sources presently in article, SIGCOV addressing this individual's work/career directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 08:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on having over 1700 citations in Google Scholar , he would meet WP:NACADEMIC .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a reasonably widely reviewed author, but it would be even better if the reviews were worked into the article.  Geschichte ( talk ) 13:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Reasonable pass of WP:Prof#C1 .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:32, 3 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
Betty Ann Camunez: WP:BEFORE check comes up with no WP:SIGCOV Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Nomination due to nominator's POV.   Passes GNG.  Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How exactly?  Did you even do a WP:BEFORE check?  A simple search of her name literally turns up no secondary sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a mention that supports her claim as the first Hispanic woman admitted to the bar in Colorado and New Mexico, but it is passing coverage.  Here is an article from when she was a Ford Foundation Fellow .  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Colorado ,  and New Mexico .  Kpg jhp jm 04:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG Qwv ( talk ) 23:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from participants about the quality of the specific sources in the article and those that exist off-wiki.   Neither saying simply "Fails GNG" nor "Meets GNG" is very persuasive.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is already on two Wikipedia and Wikiwand pages, List of first women lawyers and judges in Colorado List of first women lawyers and judges in New Mexico She is also referenced by Stanford Law School in their Women's Legal History Project .
 The biography fulfills WP:GNG guidelines.  Starlighsky ( talk ) 04:02, 10 July 2023 Keep passes GNG Andre 🚐 03:16, 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
Scott McGregor (television presenter): 2 of the 4 sources are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Australia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes NACTOR with his roles in 1915 (Logie Winner) and The Coral Island (TV series) and GNG with the likes of [5] , Willis, Robyn (21 November 1993), "Scott's train of thought", The Sun Herald , - Stevenson, Andrew (2 October 1999), "End of the line", The Daily Telegraph , - Browne, Rachel (30 January 2000), "The handyman can - Cover story", The Sun Herald , and probably the Biographical cuttings on Scott McGregor, former actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals (which comes from searching for "Scott McGregor" 1915).  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes NACTOR due to many roles in TV series and as a TV presenter.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per multiple major TV appearances and aforementioned refs.  Happily888 ( talk ) 01:42, 31 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
Mohamed Vishal: The article is promotional and links to other articles by the same author of productions that have, at best (and being generous), dubious notability.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Websites ,  and Maldives .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Main roles in 2 notable web series, among other things.  And WP:NACTOR says: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (which includes web series).... .- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 19 September 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!  07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Pass in WP:NACTOR .  look like notable Worldiswide ( talk ) 10:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:NACTOR .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  13:46, 3 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
GMA Pinoy TV: Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Founded sources for the article: [21] [22] and [23] .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We're not deleting a major international network (with a good American presence) for a large diaspora; it's viewership for Eat Bulaga easily clinches WP:N itself alone.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ.  They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:32, 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
Robert L Fletcher: I can't find any sources, the name is too common.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Significantly edited since nomination, worth a second look.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as there are over thirty sources that establish notability about this individual.  His achievements include the formation of the C.A.P. , the establishment of Fletcher Enterprises and its subsidiary Cobre Tire Company, and his company's, Fletcher Racing, participation in the California 500 and the Indianapolis 500 .  Meets WP:GNG .  WhichUser AmI 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WhichUserAmI.  Article is clearly in a much better shape than it was before.  Meets GNG and is definitely worth keeping.  CycloneYoris talk!  10:08, 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
Death in Arizona: Boleyn ( talk ) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Bolivia ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Added a few of the numerous existing sources.  Best, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article including French sources and Remezcla , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per the reception.  It needs work but the sources show that it meets notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nominations the work on this article has proven me wrong - withdrawing nomination.  Thanks for all your work, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:57, 27 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
Connecteam: Searches for קונקטים appear to be more or less the same (e.g. [35] , [36] ) though I just dumped it at the usual English language search engines, I'm not sure if there is a more comprehensive index for Hebrew language web sources outside GBY.  With these sources, it is not currently possible to write an article to our current standards (i.e. more than just a list of funding announcements) so unfortunately this company might not be suited for this encyclopedia.  Perhaps it might be able to find its home on a more specialised or comprehensive publication or database, or back here at a later date.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and Israel .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the basic media coverage contributes to the subject’s notability.  Also, the famous and influential Israeli newspaper the Globes named the it as the most promising station in the country.  Given the power of Israel tech and venture industry that is significantly in itself.  Prhinohoursers ( talk ) 22:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom if not A7.  thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This company also seems unremarkable.  Why should we have an article on them?  thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per good reliable sources I've just found and added and the remaining ones.  Also the company has quite noticeable/notable achievements, some industry impact and notability, demonstrated by the available references.  扱.  し.  侍.  ( talk ) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What.  You can't possibly think a random self-published book is a reliable source.  It's not even in Italian.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:SIGCOV .  MeltPees ( talk ) 17:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've analyzed the page and found some good sources already there, including Forbes staff, Jerusalem Post, and Globes with in-depth coverage.  Additionally, I took the responsibility to dig deeper and added several new trustworthy sources with extensive coverage from top business news media in the US and Israel.  Among the Israel-based sources are Calcalist, Globes, The Marker, etc.  -- Improvised but so real unicorn ( talk ) 11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Keep . Added the lacking Review section for the software as it is usually used across other similar pages. Significant reviews from Business.com, TechRadar, US News, and Forbes were added - both with positive and negative details. The page covers both the company and the software comprehensively with reliable sources. -- FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:27, 17 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
Sichuanese Pinyin: However, I see no evidence that "Sichuanese Pinyin" actually exists as a concept outside of Wikipedia (and a few sites which have cloned the article or used it as a source over the years).  Three Sichuanese dictionaries are referenced on the article, none of which refer to the system as "Sichuanese Pinyin" (in English or Chinese), and they aren't even consistent between themselves over the systems they use (e.g. one uses ⟨ng⟩ to transcribe /ŋ/, while another uses ⟨ŋ⟩).  For added context: it's common for modified versions of (standard) Pinyin to be used to transcribe Chinese (dia)lects which don't have their own romanisation systems, so the fact that that's happened with these dictionaries is unsurprising.  However, for "Sichuanese Pinyin" to exist as a separate concept, you would expect (at the very least) to find multiple sources using the same system, all referring to it by that name (e.g. Cantonese Jyutping , Hokkien Pe̍h-ōe-jī , or even lesser-known systems like Hainanese Bǽh-oe-tu ).  That isn't the case here, so it cannot be anything other than original research.  Theknightwho ( talk ) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found r and th as variants for [z] 如.  No response to my {cn} tags in January, though in itself that doesn't mean much.  — kwami ( talk ) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps instead of deletion we could rework it and move it to Romanization of Sichuanese , which would also entail folding in the Sichuanese version of Latinxua Sin Wenz .  I think it's fine to mention the systems used by different dictionaries; I just don't think we should be implying it's a unified system with the name "Sichuanese Pinyin", or that it's in actual use more generally.  Theknightwho ( talk ) 19:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This sounds like a good idea.  The page has useful information, and highlighting the differences between the systems in different dictionaries would make it more useful.  Freelance Intellectual ( talk ) 10:11, 20 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
Syrian Hezbollah: Cited sources have no information besides including the word Syrian Hezbollah inside them.  There is no group called Syrian Hezbollah.  Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note It also appears that the article was created by a now blocked editor.  Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:27, 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 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect to Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war , which is the proper article for this topic.  There is no distinct Hezbollah organization operating in Syria as is the case for the Kurdish Hezbollah in Turkey , for instance.  yaguzi ( talk ) 01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is, in fact, a "Syrian Hezbollah" that is not the same as the Lebanese Hezbollah; however, it is a network of militias, not a single group.  For anyone interested in the topic, I suggest read the work of Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi who has researched many militias which operate as part of the "Syrian Hezbollah" network.  Applodion ( talk ) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It belongs to Hezbollah, just as their militants in Lebanon, see ISW entry [18] and the linked book, as well as our page Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war .  Yes, it includes a number of different groups, but they operate under the same general command and umbrella.  However, nothing prevents us from creating a separate page about Hezbollah in Syria.  If so, it should be significantly expanded.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that the "Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war" article is focused on the activity of Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria, not the operations of the Syrian associates / puppets of Hezbollah.  Thus, "Syrian Hezbollah" should focus purely on the Syrian associates, allowing for two distinct articles.  Applodion ( talk ) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Applodion Durranistan ( talk ) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for same reasons AHI-3000 ( talk ) 02:02, 1 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!  23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Kevin Faires: Only confirmation of events participated in.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:41, 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!  23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly disagree with the deletion.  He is a top tier strongman in the international circuit.  Nir007H ( talk ) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Here's a relatively in-depth article from the staff wellness editor of an editorially independent source that seems pretty reliable in the field .  There's a lot of other coverage that seems reasonable, so we should easily have GNG when considering above article [11] [12] [13] , etc, with a passing mention in the Guardian — siro χ o 00:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is meeting here.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:28, 13 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
I Didn't Mean to Haunt You: Has been recreated with the same sources which were present before, and I'm still not convinced.  Check the previous AfD for my full reasoning.  Redirect to Quadeca (which it should've been in the first place but that's my mistake for forgetting to write that before).  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that the sources present in the article (i.e. Spill, Paper Magazine, The Fader, and yes, Fantano) do allow the album to fulfill the WP:GNG .  I'll admit, it does barely fulfill the requirements, but barely is still enough!  It is a little funny, we both have uncovered the same sources and yet have come to different conclusions.  I also have found one source here ,  a university-affiliated paper (which I think could be arguably an RS).  I will admit to that being a stretch, but even without that, I believe the album is just notable enough.  ULPS ( talk ) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: As this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion, there will have to be much more support for deletion for this discussion to close as a Delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets WP:GNG based on sources already present in the existing article.  Multiple bylined reviews, lots of additional background across multiple sources.   — siro χ o 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Varied sources ranging from sources wear their job is just cover any album to articles about should be enough to qualify it for WP:GNG PLUNGERwasHere ( talk ) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] replied to wrong thing sorry I'm new PLUNGERwasHere ( talk ) 02:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The article needs a bit of revising as it isn't perfectly up to standards with other album articles, but I believe it meets WP:GNG based on the sources.  SpeedrunnerInTraining ( talk ) 14:10, 3 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: keep