hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Helen O'Donnell: Per WP:POLITICIAN , being a candidate doesn’t grant notability.  That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy.  She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman.  Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy?  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland .  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page.  That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability.  ChocoElephant ( talk ) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast.  While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today.  My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that.  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 20:11, 23 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: speedy keep
Eric Hagg: No improvement since last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hagg Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports ,  and American football .  Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Another ridiculous nomination by this user.  Clearly meets GNG: [9] [10] [11] [12] .  And you absolutely do not know that there's been "no improvement since last AFD" – which was over a decade ago , since there has been...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What tool do you use to cite out those newspaper?  They seem to be helpful as they don't appear on Google.  Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Newspapers.com is accessible to users through the Wikipedia Library .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : What do you mean no improvement since the last AFD?  Looking at the

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Woman in the Moon (album): Complete absence of in-depth discussion of the album in reliable sources.  Brett Milano of New Country magazine is cited, but that was a short-lived marketing effort for the purpose of promoting new country music.  In no way would that magazine be considered independent.  Note that AllMusic does not have a prose review by a named author.  Binksternet ( talk ) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Binksternet ( talk ) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep after recent expansion with multiple sources.  Binksternet ( talk ) 20:31, 29 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: speedy keep
Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon: He has no prior parliamentary position so IMO, he do not meet WP:POLITICIAN.  Most of their press coverage stemmed from his 2024 election win, which was later overturned so he fails WP:GNG as well.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I forgot that I nom this for deletion just last month & then later withdrew the nom.  I'm withdrawing again.  However, I feel its important to discuss whether this person meets the  WP:POLITICIAN.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:30, 19 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: speedy keep
Hybolasiopsis abnormalis: Hongsy ( talk ) 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , referenced and meets ToL guidelines.  Per what source is this not a valid name? -- Kev min § 05:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The species existed in terms of WP:NSPECIES , but given its synonym is also Xylotoles abnormalis [27] , and it appears there was some renaming going on recently.  [28] That source combined Xylotoles abnormalis among other names into Hybolasiopsis abnormalis .  Maybe there's been more changes going on I couldn't find, but this is a case for a redirect at most to the current name, not deletion.  KoA ( talk ) 20:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Species, if they are real and are cited to their original author who described them, are basically always notable.  Species articles should not be brought to AfD unless there is a specific problem, such as the species is a hoax.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable.  Meets WP:NSPECIES -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move – This name appears to be a synonym of Hybolasiopsis trigonellaris , according to doi : 10.1080/00779962.2008.9722170 .  Esculenta ( talk ) 21:03, 28 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
Everyone Loves Mel: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from The Dove Foundation .   Needs one more suitable and reliable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added the review mentioned above+1 in Teen Ink .  Keep .  If judged insufficient, redirect to Joey Travolta. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is also a review in The Spokesman-Review .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 23:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Dove and Spokane are enough to pass WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 02:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep just barely passes with the two reviews found.  Likely more in paper sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and comment .  Since the fall of 2023, The Film Creator has nominated 28 articles for deletion with only 3 closing as delete .  That's pretty remarkable.  Of the articles that were kept, half were kept speedily.  This verges on a situation where The Film Creator should seriously consider if they should refrain from starting more AFDs.  From the many film nominations, it can be widely observed that:  (a) Rotten Tomatoes is useless in many cases.  (b) The Film Creator is unable to find reviews that other users have little problems finding.  Why is that?  (c) The Film Creator should learn from these users, and maybe even contact them directly instead of wasting everyone's time with ill-conceived nominations.  (d) Sure, the articles are improved through this process, but AFD is not cleanup.  Geschichte ( talk ) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources, and I agree with Geschichte's sentiments.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep blatant lack of WP:BEFORE from the usual suspects.  -- C avarrone 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *I withdraw this nomination.   Apparently, I need to practice WP:BEFORE more carefully.   I vow not to nominate any film articles for the rest of 2024.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:08, 28 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
Texas Band of Yaqui Indians: Cited mostly on primary sources but no independent, reliable sources is available.  CSMention269 ( talk ) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas .  CSMention269 ( talk ) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A quick search turned up this source which looks reliable and has some pretty detailed discussion of the Texas Yacqui band.  Also some coverage here .  Someone should check the hits for Yaqui at the Texas Observer .  I don't have an opinion either way yet, but more is out there than what is on the article.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 08:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  They get written about fairly often.  Will add more sources.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 13:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not sure what the nominator means by "Cited mostly on primary sources", as it currently does not look like that to me.  One user's sourcing has been removed, the user blocked for edit warring.  Right now, the article and its sourcing looks pretty good to me.  Most definitely notable to Texas history.  — Maile ( talk ) 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Looks notable enough to me to be on Wikipedia.  A quick scan of sources shows multiple secondary sources from different websites.  ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk ) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Upon a careful review of this, I withdraw my AfD request.  Only thing we can do is to improve the article.  CSMention269 ( talk ) 00:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you!  — Maile ( talk ) 00:07, 12 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
Nachhatar Pal: Existing sources are mostly trivial mentions.  Does not seem to have significant coverage from independent sources.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , India ,  and Punjab .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Per Wikipedia:NSUBPOL .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not aware of Wikipedia:NSUBPOL , thank you for sharing.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator.  From a perfunctory search in English, there seems to be sufficient coverage to surpass WP:NOPAGE ; more sources likely to be available in Hindi/Panjabi.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 10:04, 23 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
Mariana Dražić: Couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources, just passing mentions and stats.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  FatCat96 ( talk ) 21:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis ,  and Croatia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I opened the previous AfD, but that AfD is no longer relevant as the player now passes WP:NTENNIS .  Haven't had a chance to look for Croatian sources yet.  Iffy ★ Chat -- 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Quickly found some good looking Croatian sources that suggest this player is notable. [3] [4] [5] Iffy ★ Chat -- 10:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  I looked for Croatian sources, but didn't find any.  FatCat96 ( talk ) 13:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn .  Sources found.  FatCat96 ( talk ) 13:58, 20 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
Red Song Society: Everyone can publish their articles (without royalties) on the website and thus the website is subject to pervasive conspiracy theories and yellow journalism.  Most importantly, the article lacks sufficient sources to support its independent notability.  NZCAJD2 ( talk ) 09:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China .  NZCAJD2 ( talk ) 09:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is substantive treatment of the website in the Economist and Yingjie/Garrick discusses the Hong Zhenkuai case at length including discussion of the role of Red Song Society (see esp. page 339-40).  It also receives mentions in scholarly work talking about neo-maoism.   I added a VOA article about the Visual China controversy.  Aside from sourcing, the other reasons given in the nomination (blog style, conspiracy theories, yellow journalism) are not valid deletion rationales and has some features of WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  Websites can be notable without being paragons of virtue or good editorial practice.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:12, 25 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: speedy keep
Yevgeny Sinyayev: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Russia .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , nominator did not do WP:BEFORE B7.  The Russian Wikipedia article ru:Синяев, Евгений Палладьевич has a wealth of sources and information that should be translated and placed into the English article as appropriate.  -- Habst ( talk ) 16:15, 20 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
Melissa Moore (soccer): Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and United States of America .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability.  Giant Snowman 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY .  Article on this notable WUSA professional goalkeeper has been expanded to B-class (per Rater) and is now quite complete so please read it: Melissa Moore (soccer) .  (Note: Sports biographies from this period (late 1990s/early 2000s) require research beyond basic Google searches, which tend to miss older newspaper and magazine articles. ) There are plenty of sources now cited within the article, but the strongest of the lot include the 2002 Los Angeles Times feature article on Moore ; the 2001 Washington Post article (three informative paragraphs on Moore plus a quote); the 2002 Soccer Digest article ; and the 1994 Albuquerque Tribune feature article on Moore as a college player .  Pinging GiantSnowman .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't access source 3 but the rest seem fine and willing to AGF for it.  Giant Snowman 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To access the EBSCOHost article, log in to Wikipedia Library first, then click on the link and it should work.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - impressed by sources that I could not find.  They seem to display significant coverage.  Keep.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 04:18, 28 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: speedy keep
Erik Christensen (American football): The page currently has two sources, one a database and one an obituary clearly not independent.  Looking for sources shows a passing mentions here [15] but no significant coverage.  This [16] is presumably someone else with the same name.  WP:NSPORT has no specific guidance on American football, so WP:BASIC applies.  CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG .  I would rate these as the top three : (1) ( part 1 / part 2 ), (2) this , and (3) this .  Also lots of further coverage with varying levels of depth, including (4) this , (5) this , (6) this , (7) this , (8) this , (9) this , (10) this , and (11) this .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That works.  Thank you for your efforts; I'll close the nomination.  CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG per Cbl62.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The coverage cited above establishes that the notability standard is satisfied, with kudos to Cbl62.  Alansohn ( talk ) 02:53, 31 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: speedy keep
G5 Entertainment: Moreover, the inclusion of interviews from PocketGamer and paid publication from Forbes Georgia is suggesting the page is not notable.  25lucky ( talk ) 08:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and Sweden .  CptViraj ( talk ) 08:47, 14 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
List of Lucky Luke albums: microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lucky Luke is plainly notable.  Merging this into the main page would result in a huge amount of clutter.  It needs editing, sourcing etc, etc but that's cleanup, not AfD.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; note that there's an omnibus merge in progress (see Talk:List of Lucky Luke albums#Created as per discussion at AfD ), merging the even-worse individual articles to this page.  I suggest a waiting until the merges are done (which should remove 20-or-so weak articles), consolidating what's there into one place where it can be improved.  Note that the merge proposal itself arose from an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Collines noires , so I think that it's best to let the consequence of that AfD play out first.  Klbrain ( talk ) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As a list page, this falls under WP:NLIST , which says, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources."  Is the nominator's argument that there are no RS that discuss Lucky Luke as a whole?  If that's the case, that seems trivial to establish.  I agree with Klbrain that the merge should be completed, and then this article can be improved.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and close as too soon, I don't know how I missed the merge tag.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:13, 19 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
Jacob Dahl Jurgensen: The four External links are to websites that describe the artist's works, but no indepth content about the artist.  After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage.  Created on 12 September 2007 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 05:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient references to establish notability.  Thankyou for improving this one.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I updated the article.  WP:BEFORE shows he is in the British Museum collection.  That makes him notable.  Slim article, but I think it is a keep.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:32, 16 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: speedy keep