hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
My/Mochi Ice Cream: A lot of the info here is from the company itself.  Does not pass WP:CORP , very little coverage about it in general.  Additionally, the article reads like an advertisement.  Something it would be prudent to consider is to simply merge the article into Mochi ice cream or Mikawaya , since the brand was created after a firm acquired Mikawaya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmiumGuard ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 19 March 2024 (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/2024 March 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: There was community consensus to keep this article at its original AfD three years ago ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream ).  Left guide ( talk ) 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My official suggestion is that the article is merged.  As it stands it shouldn't just be a standalone article.  OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And why do you believe it shouldn't be a standalone article?  Consensus is that the topic is notable enough to keep the article, so you'd need to address the many sources presented in that first AfD to make a compelling case to change that consensus towards a merge.  It's imperative to remember that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article .  Left guide ( talk ) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC) pinging users involved in the first AfD @ Praxidicae , Spiderone , Shellwood , Pi.1415926535 , Tagishsimon , Aymatth2 , Peter303x , Concertmusic , HighKing , Missvain , Cunard ,  and Spartaz : Left guide ( talk ) 00:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) ‬ [ reply ] Originally I had believed the coverage to be trivial enough not to count towards anything and the sources themselves not to be worth anything, but upon closer inspection of the sources and Wikipedia's rules which I had misinterpreted at the time.  I'll take this as a learning experience.  ! vote changed to keep.  OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : this was already extensively litigated in an older AfD and closed as keep, the nominator acknowledges and agrees with that decision, essentially withdrawing the nomination, and there has been no substantial input from others.  Other content-related objections can be resolved directly at the article/talk per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP .  Left guide ( talk ) 00:53, 20 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: speedy keep
Galina Gebruk: Russian Wikipedia article deleted [22] .  -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 03:33, 23 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 23 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Judaism ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1(b) and/or (3).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In ru-wiki this article ru:Гебрук, Галина Михайловна was deleted.  -- Khinkali ( talk ) 23:05, 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: speedy keep
Jamal Harrison Bryant: He also runs a church.  This is not a noteworthy encyclopedic subject.   — Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:BASIC with significant coverage from (e.g.) the Baltimore Sun and Atlanta Journal-Constitution .  Made the local news a handful of times is an incorrect characterization for a public figure whose words are noteworthy .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 14:51, 11 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: speedy keep
Kirk, Kentucky: It does not appear on a map and the only non-GNIS source talks about Kirk Germany, and seems to reveal that this was a railroad whistle-stop.  Also: The coordinates in this article lead elsewhere Lightburst ( talk ) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kentucky .  Lightburst ( talk ) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , considering someone has added more sources.  Though there may not be much left of Kirk, it certainly existed.  Generally we keep articles about populated places.  Sionk ( talk ) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Firsfron and Sionk : Have you gone through the sources?  I am not seeing anything we can use to write an article - one source is The Attorneys List ?  Another is a name drop, two others are offline.  If I can see this was a notable place with one in depth source I will withdraw.  My before has not uncovered what Firsfron has called, "significant coverage" and I did not find any information in newspapers.  Lightburst ( talk ) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, the sources don't support some content.  I also searched The Attorneys List and found nothing.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 13:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This can be filled in, given a week or so.  Kirk was an "important town", according to one 1908 source, and there is significant coverage of the community in a 1971 history of the county.  I haven't really even begun to check sources, but there's a lot to go through, here.  Newspapers.com is showing many results, some of which will have relevant info.  Contrary to the nomination, the words "whistle stop" were not used in the sole source this article used; instead, "village" and "community" are.  This one is easily sourced.  Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Establishing notability requires proof this was a populated place (not just a commercial location), per WP:GEOLAND .   This was not easy.   However, here , on page 143, it lists Kirk's population at 25 in 1902.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 13:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw , I see this article from 1900 calling it a village/town.  Still nothing in depth but based on WP:GEOLAND we can say this existed as a village.  I am disappointed in the ref bombing - some of the references are carelessly added or say nothing about the village.  For instance, two maps are used to show that Kirk exists but the village does not appear on the maps, like this one from the refs in which Kirk is a road "Kirk loop".  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:54, 13 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: speedy keep
Will Carl Rufus: Only thing that comes close to WP:GNG is a obituary in Popular Astronomy from 1948 .  nf utvol ( talk ) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator .  Discovery of book reviews make sufficient case for WP:AUTHOR and papers published brings bare minimum for WP:NPROF , especially considering pre-internet era.  nf utvol ( talk ) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Astronomy , Canada ,  and Michigan .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  As well as the two obituaries already listed in the article, I added six reviews of two books, making a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because one is an edited volume ).  I think for an academic of his pre-internet time, that's enough.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and NASA ADS shows he has a fairly extensive list of papers published (~72), in most cases as sole author.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 23:50, 25 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: speedy keep
Rana Muhammad Akram Khan: There is no reference that is directly about him.  Fails WP:GNG .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] He is elected representative of lawyers body since very long, some of the sources not traceable on the web, some in urdu language, but He is notable politician-advocate on the face of it as he is covered by international media and held a notable position as chairman executive punjab bar council.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 ( talk ) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:AUTOBIO .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (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 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 21 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: speedy keep
Hartmut Jürgens: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Mathematics ,  and Germany .  Owen× ☎ 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning keep , as he appears to have authored significant books in his field, [23] and led significant institutes within his university, as well as having a large and well-regarded research output; [24] .  I'm fairly convinced he meets the standards of WP:NPROF or possibly an author.  There is a better source for his obituary at his old university.  [25] Elemimele ( talk ) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  May pass WP:Prof#C1 .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .  His books on fractals are well cited, as above, but they also have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above.  Thanks for your input, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:45, 20 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: speedy keep
Ronaldo Córdoba: Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - Withdrawing nomination.  Many references on the Spanish wikipedia page.  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:02, 17 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: speedy keep
The Miquon School: It largely consisted of promotional text since 2018(most of which I removed).  It's been marked as needing sources since 2011.   My search could find nothing other than profile listings of the school or other promotional pieces.  331dot ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools ,  and Pennsylvania .  331dot ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : In general, we do not keep articles about elementary schools, and usually redirect to the local district.  This topic may be the exception, being the subject of multiple articles in secondary, independent, reliable sources.  I've left 14 sources on the article's talk page from newspapers.com.  I have neither exhausted the sources on newspapers.com nor yet checked Proquest, but sourcing about the school's early and ongoing commitment to progressive education may qualify it for WP:GNG .  ( WP:ORG exempts non-profit educational institutions: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams , and this school seems to meet WP:GNG ) — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 03:00, 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: speedy keep
Kholova Fotima: The neutrality of the article is disputed and was created as clear first level advert, even with seeing this .  The editor created many drafts with has redirected to here.  The sources seems unclear and being questioned.  But  the article fails WP: GNG , WP: ANYBIO , WP: SPORTSPERSON .  Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople .  Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Martial arts ,  and Tajikistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Just saw links.  Rewriting should be better.  The article from my research is notable.  Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Cavity Search Records: Most notable press is the death of a co-founder.  TLA (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies ,  and Oregon .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per sources in last AfD .  Mach61 ( talk ) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: On second thought, you're right.  I think it barely meets notability.  Don't want to clog up AfD discussions, so I will be withdrawing my nomination accordingly.  TLA (talk) 02:03, 15 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: speedy keep
Argyll Street: The rest of the article is about the historical buildings on that street, which already have their own articles.  Rs chen 7754 17:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Rs chen 7754 17:12, 17 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: speedy keep
Ingrid Halstensen: Edit.pdf ( talk ) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep , just because the sources aren’t in English doesn’t justify deleting the article, refer to WP:GLOBAL .  There are 9 independent and reliable sources in the article for only two paragraphs, and every statement about her made in the article is supported by multiple references.  It almost definitely passes WP:NBLP .  Here’s an analysis of the sources that are used in the article: Verdens Gang , the most read online newspaper in Norway [1] Nettavisen , one of the most popular news websites in Norway, no reliability issues.  [2] Aftenposten , is Norway's largest printed newspaper by circulation.  [3] This feels like it’s going down the same path as the last nomination and I want an explanation from the nominator as to why Ingrid doesn’t pass notability with the amount of references in the article.  It almost definitely passes WP:BEFORE (which the nominator should have checked before opening), as you can find way more sources about her by just performing a simple Google search than is actually used in the article (as that would be reference clutter ) .  This should have just been reopened if you wanted a clearer consensus.  FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ http://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253 ^ https://www.tnslistene.no/? list_id=6&week=22&year=2015&report=week&metric=uv ^ https://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/190 Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism ,  and Norway .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep due to the last nomination being closed on 29 May 2023.  89.11.168.122 ( talk ) 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
10-Pin Bowling (video game): I couldn't  find any sources for it besides listings and the IGN review already in the article, and one review is not enough to satisfy notability.  Negative MP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Negative MP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very generic game with a generic title in itself that could apply to hundreds of games and proof of concept class projects.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Mobygames lists reviews from Video Games and Total!, but I was unable to find a scan of the Total! review.  With these two reviews and the IGN review on the article, appears to meet GNG.  Waxworker ( talk ) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST .  It's clear more reviews were found so I would urge the nom to withdraw the deletion.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:16, 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: speedy keep