hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Outwood Academy Riverside : Links are to government lists of schools and routine local press coverage that confirms that the school exists, but there is nothing to show any particular notability.  There are a number of other articles for these "Outwood" schools that are similar.  Flip Format ( talk ) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Flip Format ( talk ) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep Added a couple references that were less routine and more substantial.  Flurrious ( talk ) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Checked the refs found by Flurrious (thanks for finding these) and still don't see coverage that is not run of the mill .  They are also both Teesside Live refs, and we already had two of those in the article, so this doesn't add a further independent source.  As the school has only been in operation three years, I think it is too soon for it to meet WP:GNG .  Redirect to Outwood Grange Academies Trust would also be an option (I don't think there is enough content to make a merge worthwhile).  Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 13 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!  03:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Tomar Khola Hawa : Sohom ( talk ) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least redirect to Shashi_Sumeet_Productions#Soap_operas , where it is mentioned (and add some of the info, and numerous sources quoted in the article.)(but not opposed to Keep , personally)- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - All sources clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page.  Nilpriyo ( talk ) 5:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable television series of this year.  Xegma (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Just noting that previous AFD decision was to Delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:59, 21 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: no consensus
Howa wa heya : Donald D23 talk to me 03:19, 4 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!  03:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems notable.  2 Awards.  Some sources in English mention it briefly.  At the very least redirect to List of Egyptian television series , in my view.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 15 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!  05:02, 18 September 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: no consensus
Embassy of the United States, Asunción : Biruitorul Talk 09:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete yet another content fork of the bilateral relations article.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Paraguay ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:GNG .  There are several articles from reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the embassy (the building): ÚH 1 , ÚH 2 , ÚH 3 , ÚH 4 , ÚH 5 , La Nación , Hoy .  Pilaz ( talk ) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging LibStar to see if the new sources found seem convincing.  Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Quito .  Pilaz ( talk ) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The installation of an air-quality monitor on the roof of the embassy is not, I would submit, an indication of notability, but of the fact that not much happens in Paraguay.  — Biruitorul Talk 20:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevermind the history of the embassy building: this peer-reviewed article for the old embassy designed by architect Chloethiel Woodard Smith , this piece contextualizing the construction of the 1959 embassy La Nación , or this in-depth piece published in ABC Paraguay looking at the design of the new embassy.  Pilaz ( talk ) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish ( talk ) 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] see WP:PERX .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar : your impression on the sources I dug up?  Pilaz ( talk ) 12:37, 29 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, 18 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!  07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Paraguay–United States relations .  The discussion about the notability of the building above is beside the point, because the actual article is not at all about the building, but about Paraguay–United States relations , and therefore a WP:CFORK .  Sandstein 08:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Paraguay–United States relations .  Sandstein is correct that the article is about the relations of the US and Paraguay.  On its own, that wouldn't be a reason for Wikipedia not to have an article on the embassy, but there's essentially no information available on the embassy itself by reliable sources, which is very much a reason.  Tserton ( talk ) 08:29, 4 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: no consensus
Party Line with the Hearty Boys : Donald D23 talk to me 13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Television ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:32, 5 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!  07:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  WP:NTV suggests that national TV series (which this appears to be) tend to be notable unless cancelled quickly, and this ran three seasons.  A quick search under the current and old names of the show turns up quite a few references on Google Books ( e.g. ) and even Google Scholar ( e.g. ). — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 11:16, 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: no consensus
BNSD Inter College : Whilst it has some notable alumni, could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  If a school/college has one notable alumni it probably doesn't lend much weight to notability.  If on the other hand there are a few it suggests the institution may be notable.  This one is located centrally to one of the major Indian cities, Kanpur and has been established for 85 years, perhaps making notability more likely than a newer establishment out in the suburbs.  Older Indian newspaper sources are not easy to come by online, so it's hard to evaluate whether or not this college was notable in the past, when it may not appear to be so today.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I've been commenting/! voting on a few schools' AfDs recently and this one has been the hardest to come to a recommendation.  Sources don't have much depth.  This college has notability given its connections, but at the same time notability is not inherited.  The institution seems to have a kind of "faded glory", in that it was likely notable 50 or 60 years ago, but isn't so much now.  For that reason, I don't think it fits well in the only appropriate locality, Kanpur#Education because nowadays it's one of many such colleges in a city of over 2 million people.  There's not an article on its immediate locality of Chunniganj , to which I I would have recommended a merge/redirect.  As I can't see an AtD, the stark choice is keep or delete and to me it's somewhat illogical for this to have no mention on Wikipedia because of a lack of AtD, when it seems more notable than others which have redirects.  Also, I suspect but can't prove, the college would be referenced in offline sources such as Kanpur newspapers from the 1930s to 1970s and other publications, maybe in Hindi, available in local public libraries.  Rupples ( talk ) 20:40, 20 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!  23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:49, 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: no consensus
El Grupo Sexo : Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not taking a position here.  LA Times archive shows up a few sources that look promising.  [19] [20] [21] There may be more I missed in WPL.  An argument could be made for NBAND #5 due to Doctor Dream Records' 15-year history and roster, but admittedly this is very weak.  Schminnte [ talk to me ] 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - the page was recently created - it has zero RS support for notability, but sources are likely out there for the interested editors to find.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent that this article's subject is covered by extant sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:19, 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: no consensus
NASCAR on television in the 2010s : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY , mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability.  An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively merge to that target.  Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable.  See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split?  ...which is made of YouTube links.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:09, 23 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: no consensus
Biopharma LLC : The rationale is the same as in the PROD nomination: I would like to renominate the article for deletion again, on the grounds of WP:G5 .  I agree that my SD nomination was too early.  The only substantial edits to this page were by confirmed sockpuppets of Bodiadub and Yuraprox, and User:1sonng .  I think that 1sonng is a sockpuppet of Yuraprox for reasons written in this SPI .  (The said SPI had been closed because 1sonng hadn't edited for a long time.)  If you disagree with my judgement of 1sonng, feel free to deprod.  I do not think edits of any other users to this article are significant .  Janhrach ( talk ) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine ,  and Ukraine .  Janhrach ( talk ) 08:06, 1 April 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!  05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment my review of this article and its Russian and Ukrainian translations suggests it meets the notability criteria.  The Ukrainian version just needs some work on its tone.  If the reason for this deletion is the issues that the creator has, I agree to take the necessary actions such as deletion.  But in terms of notability, there is no doubt and my comment is keep.  Dejaqo ( talk ) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dejaqo , it looks like you are arguing for both deletion and keep.  Please bold only the option you are advocating for.  Otherwise your comments just cancel each other out.  L iz Read!  Talk!  08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason for deletion is that the article was created by banned editors, which is a policy-based reason for deletion.  I used AfD because it is not completely uncontroversial that one of the substantial editors is a sockpuppet.  Janhrach ( talk ) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just because socks have edited the article doesn't mean we automatically delete.  The sock diffs are stale and can easily be fixed by going through and removing ones that are questionable, and I don't see any reason for a full-scale deletion at all.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:25, 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: no consensus
Milun Tesovic : All but perhaps one reference fail WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Yugoslavia ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete - there are some news articles beyond those in the article ( [1] [2] [3] ), but I'm not sure their inclusion would be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV regardless.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Some coverage [4] , second is a trivial mention [5] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Significant coverage in a couple of sources and brief coverage in a few others.  -- Griboski ( talk ) 02:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 29 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: no consensus
Microlecture : Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good.  There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.  e.g.  1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets  2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx  3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/  4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs).  I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"?   I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.  I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [35] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write".  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:15, 27 May 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!  04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:09, 3 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!  05:23, 10 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: no consensus
Light and Space Contemporary : Sanglahi86 ( talk ) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Museums and libraries ,  and Philippines .  Sanglahi86 ( talk ) 08:19, 31 May 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!  06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources used in the article.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:13, 7 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!  04:27, 14 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: no consensus