hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Julie Marie : The two articles, contrary to what it lists, are actually titled Julie Vinter Hansen and Julie Berman .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 05:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my vote as it was about an article at a different title with different contents, and the rationale no longer applies.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete undesirable namecruft failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  We do have one non-redirect page starting with Julie Marie , Julie Marie Wade , as well as two hyphenated ones .  Geschichte ( talk ) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've replaced the two given/middle name entries with Julie-Marie Parmentier and Julie-Marie Strange , which do seem to be valid compound names.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping User:Geschichte and User:Walsh90210 if they'd like to reconsider their vote.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination .  Sacre bleu (it), on top of zat, I will create have created Marie-Julie .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This shouldn't have been moved out of process, however.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 07:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not?  The only two entries are both hyphenated.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, this nomination has been withdrawn but there is still an argument to Delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after fix.  - Altenmann >talk 04:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still think this is somewhat unnecessary, but as the person who saved the entry (!) with new names I don't see a point in arguing for deletion.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is this discussion still open?  I withdrew the nomination already, and there's a clear consensus anyway.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 14:16, 16 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
Mike Dred : I wasn't able to find online references to the artist beyond primary sources, a single album review on Medium, and a number of blurbs in aggregators and concert announcements which appear directly plagiarized from Wikipedia (one of which was, unfortunately, added as a citation to the article after I mentioned it on Teahouse).  Was unable to verify the other citations.  Box of wolves ( feed ) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Box of wolves ( feed ) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subject meets WP:BASIC .  I was able to verify the source for one claim in the article and it has a couple pages of solid SIGCOV [45] .  If we consider that in tandem with the AllMusic bio [46] attributed to a staff author, which is largely focused on musical style/label details, and not "riskier" biographical details we have a clear meeting of BASIC.  There's a fair amount of other nontrivial-but-short coverage about this performer that is not dependent on Wikipedia, as well.  Note this subject appears to be held as a very important figure in Acid Techno, and may also meet WP:NMUSICBIO#7 .  — siro χ o 06:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh jeez, no idea how I missed the AllMusic one.  I haven't been able to find a copy of the Rough Guide , but if it supports the claim that he's important to acid techno I'd agree on WP:NMUSICBIO#7 and either way WP:BASIC seems unavoidable.  Prepared to withdraw this and start looking at cleanup if nobody says any different.  Box of wolves ( feed ) 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: While doing some more research and cleanup planning, I discovered that the original revision is likely to be copy-pasted from Dred's autobiography on his own website (archived: [47] ).  The dates check out (archive scrape before article creation), and the text is character-for-character identical.  Large parts of that page are still present in the article's Acclaim section — i.e. all revisions will have copyright problems.  Going to bring that up at WP:CPN but figured it's probably worth mentioning here as well.  Box of wolves ( feed ) 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week Keep .  In addition to Box of wolves said above, he possibly meets WP:MUSICBIO for being on 2 major labels.  2 of the labels he was on have a Wiki page, which could indicate that they are notable labels.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 09:11, 22 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
Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations : This is a WP:COATRACK article for things already said much better elsewhere.  PROD removed by creator without improvement.  Stuartyeates ( talk ) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Stuartyeates ( talk ) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Once again, as I stated on Talk:Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations I don't agree that either of your points that justify any kind of deletion are true.  As far as I know, many of the things on this page are either not available elsewhere or covered with bare minimum facts which strongly justify it's own page.  With that in mind, I fail to see how this meets WP:COATRACK criteria.  Furthermore, the notion that only one source isn't completely about Russia–Ukraine relations is rather bogus, since all relevant sources there play into Liechtenstein's reaction and involvement with Ukraine.  Several others just cover their relationship in general, as minimal as it may be.  I can't be improve a page if you don't give any elaborate suggestion I'm afraid.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 21:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 00:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Also agree this is not a coatrack article.  Even though the topic isn't significantly large, it's valuable enough to keep centralised and has reasonable coverage.  -- Primium ( talk ) 02:32, 10 October 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!  21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article covering a valid subject.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A valid subject does not necessarily mean notable.  LibStar ( talk ) 14:47, 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: keep
Tanner McCalister : Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 10:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football ,  and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 13:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There's enough there and there's more on Google News.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes GNG, see for example Dayton Daily News , SI ( 2 ), and Cleveland.com ( 2 ).  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC , per BeanieFan11's sources.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While resources are quantity-wise Ok, missing in-depth coverage from independent sources, no Knowledge Panel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citations101 ( talk • contribs ) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Even not checking the sources now in the article, BeanieFan11's sources show adequate coverage from independent sources to meet GNG, whether or not it has a Knowledge Panel, whatever that is.  Rlendog ( talk ) 17:47, 24 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
Islands of Insight : No meaningful content, no notability, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL .   Not even a release date.  Even if it is ever notable, this would be WP:TOOSOON .  -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE .  Passes GNG with these sources: [5] [6] [7] therefore it should have a standalone article.  Simply being a stub is an insufficient reason to delete a page as there are countless stubs on Wikipedia.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are plenty of sources proving notability, here and in the article.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
The Revolution Smile : Beyond that, I could only find brief pieces on the band ( MTV newspiece ; one-sentence album review from Spin ) which don't impress much.  The band does have multiple notable members ( Shaun Lopez and Tim McCord ), apparently multiple releases with Geffen Records , and per the page they received plenty of high profile coverage, but I didn't see any evidence of that in my search so it doesn't help much.  Perhaps this is more a call for a search party than a proper AfD because I can't imagine any editor would lie about that coverage existing, but if we can't find it then I think we're left without a choice but to delete.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Albums and songs ,  and California .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Worth noting that there have been two previous AfDs on this band.  The first ended with a keep based on apparent notability, though that was 2006 and the standards have certainly be raised since.  The second , from 2008, included a bunch of articles, some of which (including this one) were kept while others may have been merged, though the closing statement isn't entirely clear on that.  At the very least, there is some precedent in this band's favor.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as there is an AllMusic staff written bio here and an album review here .  I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  19:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep moving to full keep as apart from the AllMusic sources identified above ive found the following reliable sources coverage at IGN here , Punk News here , Ink19 here , MTV here , CMJ here and here .  There may be more newspaper coverage as I don't have access to paywalled services but I think there is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:09, 15 August 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!  22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per A306's sources.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 01:00, 19 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
Drew Barrymore (SZA Song) : Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Coverage here [18] , lesser quality sourcing here [19] and [20] Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a good bit of coverage in Ctrl (SZA album) which could be added.  And regardless, if this gets kept then it needs to be moved to Drew Barrymore (SZA song) with that lowercase S. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I am seeing enough music video, live performance, etc. coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that look to warrant a separate article from the album.  Heartfox ( talk ) 00:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Heartfox.  ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 " Will you call me? " 📝 " Will you hang me out to dry? " 10:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Heartfox.  Aoba47 ( talk ) 16:30, 16 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
Helsfyr-Sinsen : Not really notable, and no links refer to it.  Egil ( talk ) 12:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Official subdivisions of a major city are clearly notable per WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : You say that no links refer to it, yet could there not be a link at Gamle Oslo , where you (Egil) added a mention of Helsfyr-Sinsen?  By the way, here is the entry on Helsfyr-Sinsen on Oslo City Encyclopedia .  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GEOLAND.  BTW it does have links, and the above reference is already present.  Ingratis ( talk ) 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep boroughs of a capital city are notable, whether current or not.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND as mentioned above.  Lijil ( talk ) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:11, 21 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
Fatima Hernadi : It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.  Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Morocco .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Quite a long career as a character actor.  Couple of interviews and profiles as refs.  Not a lot.  Was a WP:BEFORE done on the article.  I'm sure there must be more as the secondary source is quite glowing.  That combined with the long film career with several series makes her more than borderline for the moment.  I'll put it on my watchlist.  scope_creep Talk 08:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meets WP:CREATIVE .  Compulsive Researcher ( talk ) 16:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Luis Armando Roche : Nswix ( talk ) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reference style is ambiguous, and seems to be based on an old style from es.wiki, but there are two books all about him mentioned there under Bibliography.  A director of Venezuela's golden era.  Definitely notable.  Kingsif ( talk ) 21:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : After seeing Kingsif’s reply, I have to agree that Luis Armando Roche seems to meet multiple notability requirements.  I don’t feel this article should be deleted on the notability merits alone.  I’ve looked over some additional sources, and it looks as though some added citations could help demonstrate that more effectively.  He was featured with 2 other filmmakers from Venezuela in an exhibition at MOMA, which feels like an esteemed feature to have (I’ve also updated the Talk Page to indicate that it is no longer a WP:BLP).  Not to say the article couldn’t use additional help in some organization and translation hiccups, but I believe it’s worth to keep.  Pedantical ( talk ) 03:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Kingsif and tag for more footnotes.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:39, 30 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
Air entrainment : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Topic has quite a few publications in peer-reviewed literature: [47] [48] [49] to give three.   I think the concept is distinct enough from autoclaved aerated concrete to allow for a distinct article.   Sources would have to be worked into the article, of course, and perhaps a change of title to "Air entrainment (concrete)" would be helpful.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:07, 13 October 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!  23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; The concept of entrainment and the material that may be used are sufficiently different to warrant their own articles.  From my view, it would be akin to redirecting Ceramic to Brake pad all things being equal.  It definitely does need citations though.  - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That analogy doesn't make much sense on second thought; that being said, the process is sufficiently separate compared to a specific implementation of the technique.  - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 16:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; Some reasonable references but it could do with more.  As a Technical Editor for Springer, I do have access to journals but at the moment I don't have enough free time to help much GRALISTAIR ( talk ) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as I added the missing references.  -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk ) 11:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Darshan (2004 film) : UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are not many sources covering Kannada films of the early 2000s as shown by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annavru (2003 film) (which was nominated for deletion by me).  Regarding the broken Deccan Herald review link, remember per Wikipedia:V , Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.  Some reliable sources are not easily accessible .  Most sources presented are coverage of the film, not passing mentions (like this ).  @ Kataariveera : @ Kailash29792 : Please share your opinion.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 22:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:TOI .  The Times of India is not regarded as a WP:RS .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its not that clear cut, it is between no consensus and unreliable and during the RSN discussion it was not refuted that non-controversial content such as film reviews were still acceptable, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It could benefit from just a few more sources added.  Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not to mention that many listed in "Cast" are notable people.  Shankargb ( talk ) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 26 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