hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings: This mass shooting has had little enduring impact.  User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maine .  User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It has only been a few months.  There is plenty of coverage of the initial event, and more is certain to come from the investigation and prosecution.  - SimonP ( talk ) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just a news story with no lasting WP:EFFECT .  All sources are breaking news.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thebiguglyalien , I've updated the article.   Notability determinations depend on sources that exist in the real world, not just the sources already cited in the article.   There were multiple articles from the Associated Press (indicating that this was national news) and other publications that aren't breaking news.   I wonder if you'd like to check again.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SimonP .  JeffSpaceman ( talk ) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SimonP .  Calienteramen ( talk ) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now per everyone else, though this article could use some more expansion.  Corgi Stays ( talk ) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per SimonP .  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Trial to come, so not dormant yet.  WWGB ( talk ) 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per enough coverage of the event.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, no one has explained how this article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events) .  There is no depth or duration of coverage, no lasting impact or widespread geographic impact.  It is barely even discussed in local media at this point. -- User:Namiba 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Namiba , I was adding more sources while you were typing this.   One of them is several thousand words long.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: many Wikipedia articles have not much impact, so does that mean we need to delete most Wikipedia articles?  Thehistorianisaac ( talk ) 04:57, 31 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
Egor Shuppe: LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Russia ,  and United Kingdom .  Spideroe (Talk to Spider) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on good faith - This appears to be a literal translation from Wikipedia Russia and Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic.  Not sure how the nominator knows if the references are reliable or not, since half of them are in one or both of those languages.  — Maile ( talk ) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that the references are adequate.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:58, 11 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
Music in professional wrestling: The article has the tag OR since 2008.  No in deep coverage of the subject by reliable sources.  Few sources just talk about a musician created music, but not enough for the article.  Survived a AfD in 2007, but it was just a list of theme musics HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 09:14, 26 November 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 November 26 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Wrestling .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I simply do not know how to evaluate this as professional wrestling as a whole is something big.  To say there's nothing in RS is obviously not true as there's this and that , and probably way more since professional wrestling is somewhat considered one of the top sports entertainment.  dxneo ( talk ) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] anyway leaning towards keep .  dxneo ( talk ) 14:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Music in wrestling as a whole is notable, and this article serves as a good starting point.  Potential original research aside, it is not enough to merit at WP:TNT .  Here are some sources directly dealing with the more theatrical professional wrestling: Pruitt, Cenate (2019).  "Get In The Ring: Professional Wrestling and Heavy Metal Music in Parallel."  The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology Davis, L. R. (2012).  "Cultivating Identity and the Music of Ultimate Fighting."  Bowling Green State University.  Wells, Christi Jay (2023).  "'Gimme a Hell Yeah!’ Stone Cold Steve Austin and the WWF’s Soundscapes of Rage."  Journal of Popular Music Studies .  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2023.35.1.109 Bessman, J. (1999).  "Wrestling Mania Grips Koch, Tommy Boy."  Billboard However, I would also recommend moving the article to simply "Music in wrestling" to incorporate sources such as this: Brody, Bina N. (2023).  "Competing Bodies and Subversive Songs: Negotiating a Changing Tradition in Senegal’s National Wrestling Music."  University of Pennsylvania.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 11:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The move can be discussed after consensus has been reached, probably at WP:RM .  dxneo ( talk ) 12:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Classic WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP violation.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:47, 26 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
Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources and passes WP:GNG , and the nomination rationale is to put it kindly, beyond p**s poor with WP:BEFORE clearly not done.  Please start typing more than three words as a rationale.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note Nominator blocked as a {[confirmed}} sock.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:20, 21 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
Barbie in A Mermaid Tale 2: QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale in a new section titled "Sequel" near the bottom.  Left guide ( talk ) 01:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NFILM /GNG with a review in Common Sense Media [34] and a retrospective review in Polgyon [35] — siro χ o 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NFILM sources mentioned by Siroxo by way of the nomination.  This is a full article about a film featuring the now iconic character (and mermaids).  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either Redirect as suggested by  Left guide above, or Keep , as some sources have been presented by QuietCicada and Siroxo, to which one can add, in Fr. , a rapid assessment here .  Opposed to deletion anyway.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) (Edited 12/24 after checking the source presented by Atlantic306, below.) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG from the sources the nom and siroxo have found.  User:Let'srun 15:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I can never understand noms for sequel movies when the first doesn't get nominated at all; here, its notability is self-evident as a sequel film for a notable property.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As mentioned above, meets notability guidelines.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion, also found this review in a Dutch film magazine here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, various reviews have it meet WP:NFILM Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale .  Only two sources have been found so far, plus two unreliable blogs.  This does not pass WP:GNG .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t know what the above comment refers to as ’unreliable blogs’ but neither the French Quels films pour les Enfants nor the Dutch Cinemagazine are blogs, and I would consider them rather reliable. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 24 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: keep
Emergency Digital Information Service: UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it: [14] [15] [16] .  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:55, 5 June 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!  20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in light of the sources posted by Barnards.  jp × g 05:02, 13 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
Yinka Sunmonu: I couldn't find anything to meet WP:JOURNALIST either.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and United Kingdom .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  (I created the page.)  That she was given her own entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture suggests to me she has a place in recent Black British culture which makes her notable.  Dsp13 ( talk ) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - My initial search for sources indicates she also developed a website, which was reported on in the Guardian in 2004: New chapter for black literature .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:36, 18 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!  22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture (2002) includes biographical information and indications of further coverage, such as "Her work on fostering and adoption was featured in the Channel 4 Adoption on Trial series and a paper on her adoption survey for the Voice newspaper (the first of its kind on black attitudes towards adoption) appeared on the Channel 4 website."  Her paper " Why black carers are deterred from adoption " was first published in Adoption & Fostering in April 2000.  In addition, there is the review in Wasafiri by Steffen Krueger of her novel (pp. 73-74) Cherish (2003) I reviewed at the Wikipedia Library, and I found a review at the Community Care website.  She was interviewed by the The Guardian in a Q&A format in 2003 after her novel was published, and as noted above, in 2004, The Guardian reported on her website development, and also includes her statements.  She also wrote for The Guardian in 2004, and there is a note appended about her upcoming participation in a debate and her association with the Thomas Coram Research Unit.  I think with the available sources, there is support for WP:BASIC notability, and the article could be further developed.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Substantive entry in Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture and other sources found by Beccaynr enough for GNG.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 15:01, 25 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
Indian Railways: which can be added as section in Rail Transport of India page seperately.  Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 17:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 17:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation ,  and Delhi .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well-sourced; one article as mentioned by the nom is about the company, the other is about the history of rail in India.  Two different things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The two articles cover different material.  As Rail transport in India points out, "Majority of the metro urban rail networks are operated by independent bodies constituted for the purpose of the respective operations. Private owned rails exist in few places, mostly used to connect freight to the integrated rail network. Inter-city rail services are operated primarily by Indian Railways though efforts have been made to introduce privately operated trains as recently as 2022."  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While much of Indian Railways forms a subset of Rail transport in India, the first article is about the company with a few sections pertaining exclusively to it in detail.  The rail transport is a generic article and as IR was and is not the only railway operator, it needs to exist as a standalone article detailing the history and other rail transport in India.  Magentic Manifestations ( talk ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article stats and history — Total edits: 6,711; editors: 2,803; 30-day pageviews: 66,844; article created: 2004-05-15 (19+ years ago).  Do we really want to get rid of this one?  Maybe check with some of those 2,800+ editors?  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] then I think it should be merged and kept as seperate section that's the conclusion if u all agree Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 04:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The articles don't cover the same things as others have mentioned, and needs to be separate.  S5A-0043 Talk 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously, different scope which justifies the existence of both articles.  Rail transport in India also covers the history before Indian Railways, and the Indian Railways article doesn't include metro/commuter services run by cities or the existence of several private railways in the country.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the articles are different as noted with several editors above.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 06:20, 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: keep
Company man: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I was going to suggest draftify as it has zero citations, but it's had a no citations hatnote since 2008.  Delete per WP:NOCITE ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A quick Google Books search suggests that the oil industry definition here is accurate, and that sources exist that could support it.  Will Pettijohn's Oil & Gas Handbook (2012) defines the role as the top supervisor [...] responsible for the operator's interest in the well .  Rappini and Neto's Company Man: The Well Constructor in the Offshore World (2022) says the Company Man is [...] the onsite professional directly responsible for coordinating and managing well construction and maintenance in a safe and efficient way .  Ron Baker's A Primer of Oil-well Drilling (1979) says the company man is in direct charge of all the company activities on the drilling location .  Adam Sampson ( talk ) 19:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in response to Chidgk1 : this absolutely "true".  I even suspect that "company man" appears on some business cards.  On an offshore oil rig , all the work is done for the big oil company under contract by other " oilfield service companies ": the drilling company /rig owner plus specialists such as wireline testing companies and mud companies .  There's normally just one employee of the actual oil company that's paying for all this and will own the well -- that's the "company man" who's there to supervise these contractors. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable per Adam Sampson 's refs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:15, 11 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
List of years in South African sport: The content it does serve hinders navigation.  Take for example the unsourced 1962 in South African sport which is a Content fork of 1962_in_South_Africa#Sports , except the latter section has no content.  Rather than work bottom up and further degrade the usefulness of this list by proposing mergers of the subarticles, I wanted to see if there was consensus for deleting or merging the main article.  My policy argument for deleting or reworking this article is that per WP:NOPAGE we are not serving readers best by organizing content this way.  If a particular year of sport in South Africa can get enough significant coverage, it can then be built out and perhaps expanded into a true content fork.  But by spreading ourselves out across these pages that aren't yet ready to be separate, we're making things more clunky.  ForksForks ( talk ) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  ForksForks ( talk ) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Afd is not for cleanup.  After doing a random sampling, I can say that there are legitimate year lists, so it does serve a navigational purpose.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as Clarityfiend says AfD is not from cleanup.   That the nominator doesn't find is useful is poor evidence that it actually hinders navigation as they claim.   Talk page discussion on the proper format for this content ("Timeline of South African sport" perhaps) is the way forward, not deletion.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:53, 15 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!  19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I really hate to say this but given how much I've seeing too much fuss with stuff in favor of deleting articles in AfD discussions, especially where there's a lack of evidence that an article should be deleted.  I have to agree with Eluchil and Clarityfiend on this.  Given that it does have a purpose to help users navigate to a year in a specific history in sporting event, it does have a purpose.  20chances ( talk ) 17:58, 23 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: keep
Lew Morton (baseball): Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and Kansas .  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG, such as [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] .   And given the vintage there is probably a lot that is not available on the internet.  Rlendog ( talk ) 13:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Thanks to User:Rlendog for digging up these sources.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:48, 22 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: keep