hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Nguyễn Thị Lệ Nam Em: Mccapra ( talk ) 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Vietnam .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More than passes GNG, simply clicking the NEWS tab in the infobox brings up many Vietnamese sources about her acting.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Goes by Nam Em, if that helps.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:32, 24 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
Kayes Arju: Fails WP:NACTOR fails WP:NSINGER 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians ,  and Bangladesh .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the creating editor has moved this unilaterally back to Draft space and removed the AfD notice immediately post nomination.  I'll leave others to judge the validity of this set of operations.  I am not minded to withdraw the nomination.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 10 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: no consensus
Haplotype 35: jengod ( talk ) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  jengod ( talk ) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added a reference.  Most articles about individual haplotypes deal with a name that begins with a letter rather than a digit, so this might not be the current terminology.  I wonder whether this should be merged into Haplogroup R1b .  Haplogroup 21 is a redirect to Haplogroup E-M215 , for example.  I will post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics asking for expert help.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:48, 10 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!  07:07, 17 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!  05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  This numbering system isn't used anymore, and it's hard to work out what the exact modern equivalents are because there have been several rounds of renumbering as our grasp of human genetics has improved.  There's certainly no reliable source that provides a convenient lookup chart!  In any case, determining whether Ht35 is equivalent to R1b-Z2103 or just to R1b-L23* is way past my pay grade, but that's fine, because we don't dice the haplogroups up that finely for articles.  The appropriate merge/redirect target is Haplogroup R-M269 .  I'd like to advocate for a merge instead of a redirect, but that target article is a mess and I have no idea how you'd merge cleanly.  Lubal ( talk ) 00:49, 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: no consensus
Alandré van Rooyen: All I found was routine transfer news ( 1 , 2 ).  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Absolutely heaps of coverage, but the majority of it is transactional, a bit of a surprise given he played in the English top league, but heyho.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week Keep - Found this should pass WP:BASIC [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] .  Otbest ( talk ) 19:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: 1 is a primary source.  2 is a duplicate of 4, which is a routine transactional announcement with two sentences of coverage.  3 is a routine transactional announcement with two sentences of coverage.  Even BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:20, 16 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!  23:05, 21 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!  22:03, 28 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
Joe Hill-Gibbins: Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , Theatre , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 7 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!  16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lots of passing mentions, Gbook stuff, reviews, news and interviews combined to meet WP:SIGCOV .  Passes WP:BIO .  Article needs work and i'll do it.  scope_creep Talk 10:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 08:57, 21 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
Bajirao's Konkan Campaign: It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis , Nizam of Hyderabad , the British East India Company , and the Portuguese Empire .  However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign.  The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records.  It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles.  This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR , combining unrelated conflicts.  Imperial [AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , India , Portugal ,  and England .  Imperial [AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.  Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk ) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign , alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes .  Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!!  That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it. -- Imperial [AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  6 sources on the page.  2 strong sources are from historians Sinha and Sardesai.  19 page coverage from Sinha and 4 page coverage from Sardesai.  I can not verify other 4 sources but with two reliable sources that the page took its help from, is enough for keeping the page and it passes the general notability guidelines.  Page does need improvement too.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:44, 15 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!  22:51, 16 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
Chinnamalai: At best this needs WP:TNT until someone can write it in a less gushy way.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu .  JMWt ( talk ) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - The article is poorly written and nearly unsourced.  That said, there seems to be encyclopaedic info underneath the flowery phrasing.  I'd volunteer to help with a rewrite, but there's just nothing to work from and the originator of the article vanished a decade ago (this topic was their only apparent interest).  If someone can find me five RSs in English, I'll do a rewrite.  Otherwise, I'll reluctantly switch my ! vote to Delete.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It's kinda hard to find sourcing for this location, as almost all sources I'm pulling up are discussing a freedom fighter or transport company under the same name.  I agree this reads like a travel guide, and it's admirable that

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Kavana Sarma: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC .  Properly assessing against WP:NAUTHOR would need Telugu news/literary sources.  The te-wiki version of this article is not promising, and nor is a search for the Telugu versions of his name and pen-names.  On the other hand, there are two reviews in the national The Hindu newspaper which are linked from his site [34] [35] , and neither of these reviews are visible from a search -- even directly on the site .  Given that he has been writing since the 1970s and online coverage is obviously deficient, a weak keep on NAUTHOR#3 grounds based on the visible reviews plus the selection of his work for translation (see [36] ).  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 10:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails both  and WP:ACADEMIC , as the above contribution by Hydronium Hydroxide also relates.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:02, 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!  18:15, 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!  19:25, 22 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
Betaproteobacteria-1 RNA motif: No source besides one paper.  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or Delete .   Published in 2017, it is possible this has been mentioned in other manuscripts under a different name, which might be identifiable via sequence searches or deep review of articles citing the paper supporting this stub.   However, I believe that until a motif such as this has been confirmed in some way through experimental evidence, we shouldn't have an article about it.   I looked and we do not have an appropriate list to add a mention to.   Therefore, my ! vote to either Delete or Draftify.  (same comment as that on a similar AfD)  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep : see my comment at [ [7] ] (w.r.t. the deletion discussion for IMPDH RNA motif ).  Zashaw ( talk ) 09:23, 10 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!  05:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:31, 30 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
Lori Wells: The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog .  She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama.  Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and England .  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While she does have a Wikipedia page, most of her roles seem to be minor, except Get Some In! in which she has acted in 21 episodes, but as a minor role.  She doesn't meet the notability criterion.  Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Kisses at Fifty was a one-off TV play, but an important one, where she had an important role.   It was one of the best-known plays in Play for Today, and the BBC repeated it quite recently.   Here role in Get Some In! wasn't that minor, she appears in the list of characters, and in the box at the start (and I did not put her there).  PatGallacher ( talk ) 14:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  seems to pass WP:NACTOR for 2 significant roles in notable productions.  More sources wouldn't hurt.  I would have suggested a redirect to Kisses at Fifty, but her role in Get Some In! is also rather significant.  Worst case scenario, that might be a solution, though.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 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
SagamoreHill Broadcasting: PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Companies ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep :  While I am unable to find indepth articles specifically about SagamoreHill Broadcasting, I did see plenty of articles that mention the company and articles about the stations it owns.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:12, 1 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!  03:32, 8 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!  04:02, 15 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
Pete List: Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Bands and musicians , Comics and animation ,  and New York .  Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Besides work in animation I think that WP:NMUSIC #10 works.  Also does not seem to be WP:BEFORE done since he moved and is in the wrong category.  ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 22:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He does not meet WP:NMUSIC #10 (a song/clip in a single TV episode is not enough and it's unsourced) but might meet WP:NCREATIVE for his animation work.  S0091 ( talk ) 18:15, 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!  22:37, 2 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!  21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can see the subject pass WP: GNG since the WP: CREATIVE aspect is sourced!  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 02:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 17 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
Victor Vernicos: Suggest either draftify or redirect .  WP:ONEEVENT applies too.  - Ricciardo Best ( talk ) 07:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Music .  Heart (talk) 07:47, 19 May 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 May 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep References + a quick Google News search show that the subject comfortably passes WP:GNG .  Blue Edits ( talk ) 10:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Nomination shows virtually zero evidence of a WP:BEFORE as references and a quick Google News search (per Blue Edits) shows that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC points 1 and 10.  ser!  ( chat to me - see my edits ) 18:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Many sources for this one; the sources already in the article pass WP:GNG .  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sourced, passes WP:GNG, no issues Toffeenix ( talk ) 10:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As of right now he passes WP:GNG.  Good sourcing.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 16:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 .  Per WP:ONEEVENT , the subject does not appear to be notable outside of the somewhat lackluster appearance at Eurovision.  He is young and may do more in the future, but he's not there yet.  Most information in this article would be appropriate for the redirect target.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 13:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 .  While the article itself is a perfectly acceptable stub/start, the subject itself may be better off represented within the "Greece in ESC 2023" article given WP:ONEEVENT and to give a more holistic view of their participation in the contest from this context as their only notable event to date.  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per both editors above.  Clearly the subject is not notable enough for a standalone article.  CycloneYoris talk!  09:34, 28 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: no consensus
Arcon 2: InDimensional ( talk ) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has an entry in the reference book Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide .  Most serious dead-tree reference works have stricter entry requirements than our notability guidelines.  Mach61 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:49, 11 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