hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Patty Petersen: A blurb about her in her brother's article would be appropriate, but not even close to sufficient notability for a standalone article.  Safiel ( talk ) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women .  Safiel ( talk ) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She was in 99 episodes of a major series.  That in itself should be enough to keep her.  Antonio Miss Me?  Martin ( queeeee? ) 14:05, 25 May, 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:GNG .  See for example: "Pestiferous" .  Courier-Journal .  Louisville.  5 April 1964.  p. 101.  "Actress supreme emulates Lassie" .  The Record .  Hackensack.  24 January 1963.  p. 50.  "Patty Petersen stars on 'Donna Reed Show' " .  The Lima News .  30 January 1963.  p. 15.  "Togetherness with the Petersen kids: Paul and Patty" .  Detroit Free Press .  22 December 1963.  p. 50.  pburka ( talk ) 14:24, 25 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
Maaveeran (2023 film): Unreleased films are only notable if production has been notable, and this article says nothing about production.   Review of the references shows that none of them are secondary sources, and they are all advance publicity.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Says that the trailer has been viewed.  No No Sometimes No 2 ottplay.com Announcement of the trailer No No ?  No 3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Discussion of change in date of release No Yes Sometimes No 4 ottplay.com Interview about the dubbing No Yes ?  No 5 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Interview with the actor who plays the villain No Yes Sometimes No There is already a draft, which has more sources than this article.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Instead, move the better developed draft to this title.  Kailash29792 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't believe this article is eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Kailash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maaveeran (2023 film) .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This movie is scheduled to be released in 2 days.  Is it worth deleting today when it will just be recreated?  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have a draft, and we should move that to the mainspace once this is deleted.  Had I known Yethin Nanba would hastily create this article, I would've moved the draft sooner.  But I decided to wait until the film's release per WP:NFF .  Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like the merge was already done.  Think Kailash is asking for a history merge.  Deleting the article after the film has been released makes no sense.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NFILM , as the film received full-length reviews from three or more nationally notable critics listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that is has been released and reviewed.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:45, 16 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
Alice in Wonderland (franchise): The individual releases are notable, sure, but the franchise as a whole would appear to not be.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television ,  and Disney .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NEXIST .  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please provide proof of these sources existing?  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InfiniteNexus : Please provide the sources that you say exist.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources for what?  I brought up NEXIST because The references are all primary is the first sentence of your nomination.  Each of the "main" articles on the franchise article has plenty of reliable secondary sources, which can easily be imported into this article, thus addressing the sourcing concern.  Per WP:FILMSERIES , as long as a film series or franchise comprises three installments, provided that all of those installments demonstrate notability and there are sources calling the franchise a franchise, an article may be created.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there reliable sources calling it a franchise?  If so, can you provide them?  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure.  New York Times , Vanity Fair , Forbes , Business Insider , IndieWire , /Film , Mashable , Screen Rant , ...  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes WP:GNG per the sources provided by InfiniteNexus .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:03, 30 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
No Monster Club: Most sources are either too short or mainly focus on another project by Bobby Aherne.  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland .  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep on this one - there are several independent citations referenced in the article to demonstrate compliance with WP:NMUSIC , including a staff bio with Allmusic , and a number of album reviews.  Resonant Dis tor tion 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added reviews by GoldenPlec and State (magazine) I found at the fr article.  S0091 ( talk ) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If Bobby Aherne is not notable enough to warrant a page, then how can a side-project of said musician need one.  If he is, then create one and merge this page into that.  MNewnham ( talk ) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what that means.  A band can be notable even if individual members of the band aren't.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with @ Toughpigs - this AfD is focused on whether the band No Monster Club meets notability guidelines, primarily through analysis of available independent coverage.   If an editor considers Bobby Aherne as independently notable then they can create a separate page.  Resonant Dis tor tion 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This review from the Dublin Gazette and the reviews added by S0091 are decent coverage.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of reliable sources coverage referenced in the article such as the Irish Times, Chicago Reader, Dublin Gazette, AllMusic and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:52, 23 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: keep
Blue Moon (game): Expressive101 ( talk ) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable.  Dozens of these proprietary games are produced every year; a few win prizes and go on to become notable (Uno being a leading example), but this is not one of them.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 12:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added excerpts from lengthy reviews found in two large-circulation European magazines which I believe denotes notability.  Guinness323 ( talk ) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Guinness323, meets WP:GNG for notability.  BOZ ( talk ) 00:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per updated sourcing.   And, in general, everything by Reiner Knizia is probably notable.  Hobit ( talk ) 20:10, 18 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: keep
Houston Blue: I was unable to find any further mentions of this book by independent, non-automatically generated sources online.  In summary, a small book that did not seem to either sell or garner any amount of critical reception.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia:Notability (books) has the following notability criterion: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."  If it passes this criteria (there are two, independent, non-trivial published works about this book!), then it's notable.  Any work only needs to meet one criterion on NBOOKS to be notable.  Indeed a Houston Chronicle article by Jennifer Pearson is independent of the book, and so is the article in the The Journal of Southern History .  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 02:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the two reviews already present in the article, Proquest finds two short reviews (Houston blue; the story of the Houston Police Department.  Reference and Research Book News.  Portland Vol.  28, Iss.  1,  (Feb 2013).  & Romance, psycho keep mystery alive Standard Times San Angelo.  11 Jan 2013: O.2.) and a long prepublication piece (NEW BOOK SHARES TALES OF HOUSTON ' BLUES' US Fed News Service, Including US State News; Washington, D.C.. 24 Aug 2012.).  From Ebscosearch, it is also described as among "several seminal works deal with the issue of police misconduct" ( Esparza, Jesús Jesse. Brown, Black, and Brutalized: A Brief History of Police Brutality Against Chicanos and African Americans in Houston. Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South. Spring/Summer2023, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p45-78).  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 23:08, 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
NASCAR on television in the 2020s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability.  An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , deletion is not clean up.  The races televised are very much list cruft , but the sourcing for the year-by-year is sufficient.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not say it was clean up, I questioned the reliability of sources per WP:RS .  Not to forget Bornon tried to add new sources, they still do nothing for notability.  Better make use of Fandom and put this list out of its misery.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Go to Fandom" is more or less saying you're trying to use AfD as cleanup, and the snobby tone used won't make you any friends.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not at all and I don't have anything against Fandom either.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio .  Sourcing for the prose in the article could be better (a lot of primary refs), but secondary refs do EXIST .  The amount of prose in here makes this copy-and-paste rationale by the nom look silly.  LISTCRUFT and NOTDATABASE cannot apply here and the proposed ATD is countered by WP:NOMERGE points 1 and 2.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split?  ...which is made of YouTube links.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 23 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: keep
The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse: I have done a quick Google and Google Scholar search and haven't been able to find any reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the book.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 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!  06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per wp:nbook clause 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is exceptionally significant, and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."  While this book in particular hasn't been the subject of much scholarly discourse, nevertheless Burgess is a significant American children's author and is the subject of academic study. All of his books are notable. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with user Central and Adams. killer bee 09:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Wikisource , not only is the author significant, but Danny Meadow Mouse  is the lead character in multiple works. — Maile ( talk ) 16:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments by Central and Adams and — Maile . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:31, 13 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
James P. Arguelles: Failed nominees for federal judgeships are not inherently notable.  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  But article will need a rework for BLP issues, as it's not focused on notability right now.  I see quite a bit of independent secondary coverage of the subject's judicial opinions and aspects of their background eg [26] [27] [28] [29] , and much more.  — siro χ o 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  For the same reasons mentioned above.  MIAJudges ( talk ) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 06:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative proposal : Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations .  We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns.  BD2412 T 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider User:BD2412 's proposal.  Unfortunately, article has not been created yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : If my proposal is accepted, I'll create the article.  It shouldn't take long.  BD2412 T 00:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I closed another AFD based on your proposal, ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk B. Paloutzian ) but, to be honest, all of these judicial AFDs are running together in my memory.  I had no idea there were so many judges on the project.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG , and the additional sources presented don't really cover him - they're all about the state's governor.  Non-notable judicial nominee.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not much feedback on BD2412's proposal so I guess this discussion will have to close based on the response of participants alone.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support proposal of BD2412 - that sounds like a good idea to me.  I'd be happy to help on that article; if it is created, please let me know on my talk page.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:46, 6 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
IP Casino Resort Spa: MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plentiful sources exist.  Please see WP:BEFORE ; it is preferred to search for sources before nominating rather than making others do the work.  Casinos in most of the U.S. are significant economic actors that attract at least regional media coverage of every chapter of their development.  See for example: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Toohool ( talk ) 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per wp:before - the topic (not yet the page) is well supported by numerous credible sources.  Moreover, the resort is significant from an economic perspective.  It was the second-largest privately-owned hotel in the world at the time of Engelstad's death, with almost 1,000 rooms and 900 employees.  BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per has WP:SIGCOV Lightburst ( talk ) 15:04, 18 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