hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
1974 Sutherland District Council election: Simply does not pass WP:GNG .  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance.  For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman .  Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities.  For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils , all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case).  Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward.  Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Good improvements.  I think Template:1974 United Kingdom local elections is a clue.  The fact that many of the Sutherland wards were unopposed and none contested by candidates representing political parties should not mean that we exclude this District from coverage that is seemingly non-controversial elsewhere.  Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 27 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
Dingbat the Singing Cat: CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat , Cash Box , and Variety .  Those three are plenty enough.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 00:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Added a couple of sources.  It was apparently a pop music favorite ca.1946-47.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and improved with sources.  dxneo ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America .  dxneo ( talk ) 00:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 00:10, 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
Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani: Already covered in Tirukkural translations .  No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord.  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , History , India ,  and Rajasthan .  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More citation added to establish notability.  Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani .  Article now passes WP:GNG .  Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles.  Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations .  // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 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
Norman Nuñez: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG With signicant coverage already on page, this and this . -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Although more local to Belize, I feel it just scrapes by on basic GNG for whats out there.  That first citation just puts it for weak keep for me.  Govvy ( talk ) 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Clearly significant figure in Belizean football and definitely as offline sources as well as good ones already there.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Right now at No consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lengthy career in Belizean football, multiple appearances in international matches, praised by Belize's largest newspaper, which describes him as a "a football legend".  Mooonswimmer 16:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep First Amandala link goes over his 20 yr career (noted a few !votes above this one), rest are highlights, seems notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:33, 22 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
Burrows Court: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply per what's already in the article, keep .  Uncle G ( talk ) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as many sources were found (so many that I haven't quite finished with all the fixes).  The building is covered extensively by Nottingham Evening Post over a period of decades, showing WP:SUSTAINED interest (and literally impossible and unnecessary to include every single piece).  So I spent some time looking for coverage in other sources, and that exists as well, like this BBC News article focusing on lack of security and drug dealing at the property, and poor upkeep of the building by the council.  Plus there are several others which have been added to the article.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above.  Thanks for contributing to this and proving me wrong.  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:30, 29 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
Sri Edi Swasono: Article also seems a little too favourable towards the subject.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Economics ,  and Indonesia .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This Indonesian economist passes (weakly) WP:Prof and WP:GNG .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL , was a member of the MPR (national parliament) in the late 1980s [12] [13] .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as he was the part of People's Consultative Assembly , he will pass notability by WP:NPOL .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:46, 27 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
Alison Chartres: Consensus has shown that ambassadors do not automatically meet WP:NPOL and there is no inherent notability of ambassadors.  She is lacking significant coverage, most sources are her speaking in the role of ambassador, not her being the subject of the source as required by WP:SIGCOV .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and Australia .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  While there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, most of them are quite good at getting their name in the newspapers, and I was able to find several references for Alison Chartres.  This one shows her posing outside the farmhouse in Kenya where he father once worked.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Eastmain decision.  Not sure it's there are many sources to get.  CastJared ( talk ) 03:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  The sources added by Eastmain are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC , if not WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  Deus et lex ( talk ) 22:37, 1 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
FashFilmFete: A WP:BEFORE search turned up only the routine local coverage cited.  Festival's website doesn't yet mention it running a third time.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Fashion ,  and Arizona .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few refs.  Seems notable.  Keep .  (At least a redirect to Phoenix,_Arizona#Other_attractions_and_annual_events seems warranted).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The updated sources demonstrate notability.  To the point about their website not yet mentioning a third festival- the second one was only in September 2023 so may well be too soon for that.  In any case, I think there's enough notable coverage from the first two years to justify the page.  Thebookstamper ( talk ) 13:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:22, 17 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
Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress: Filmfrae Filmfare awards is owned by The Times Group , disqualifying both ET and TOI.  Sohom ( talk ) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Film , Awards ,  and India .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is your signature meant to be displayed like it is, with the nowiki?  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by independent sourcing?  Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible?  Sahajitbro ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed.  For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected).  (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae -->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sahajitbro Take a look WP:INDEPENDENT .  You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources.  Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Questions:  1) what about coverage such as this or this or this for example?  2) if the award itself is judged insufficiently covered, would you consider a redirect to Filmfare Awards ?  Thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank All of those sources are classic examples of WP:CHURNALISM .  2 and 3 are effectively parroting press releases.  1 might be debatably reliable, however it is very short and does not constitute sustained in-depth coverage.  No opposition to a redirect.  Sohom ( talk ) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also noting that this was originally a contested BLAR.  Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT from the main article.  Has reliable sources coverage as shown during this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:07, 16 April 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 ) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT and has coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:01, 21 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
Amar y temer: Tagged for notability since 2012.  PROD removed with "de-prod. clearly notably, check spanish wiki", which I had already previously done...and, while that article is more detailed than this English one, there are ZERO references there as well.  Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain .  Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The only hit in Google Book Search was a trivial mention in ISBN 9781479893881 .   But there are more web results, including [1] ( El Universal (Cartagena) ) and [2] (some random blog).   The eswiki article also said it won one es:Premios India Catalina award and was nominated for others.   My Spanish isn't good enough to work on this (and I have found no non-trivial mentions in English-language media), but I think there is sufficient coverage for an article.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom, Fails GNG and [[WP:RPRGM].  Sources found are promo, primary, database, etc, nothing from IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Additional SIGCOV: [3] .  Going to add the sources available so far.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Donaldd23 and @ TimothyBlue to take a look at my work.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following improvements made.  – Meena • 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sources: [4] , [5] (barely), [6] These appear to be IS RS SIGCOV.  They address the subject (the show) directly and indepth (it provides significant, not trivial, information about the subject).  [7] this looks like an unreviewed opinion post from a reader, if I'm wrong let me know; Fails RS.  [8] , article is about another subject.  The only thing I can find here is the sentence, "On the other hand, Amar y temer -with Diana Hoyos- will remain on the air, at midnight" while the article discusses schedule changes.  Fails SIGCOV.  [9] , name mentioned in list.  Fails SIGCOV.  3/6, but three IS RS with SIGCOV will pass GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep switched from delete based on article improvement.  // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 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
Ee (band): UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 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!  17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to meet WP:BAND .5.  Released 2 albums on Asian Man Records , which has published albums from independently notable artists such as The Queers , Alkaline Trio , Laura Stevenson , The Lawrence Arms , The Smith Street Band , Smoking Popes , Dogbreth , etc — siro χ o 20:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as SF Weekly here , Asian Week here , AllMusic staff bio here , AllMusic staff album review here , AllMusic album review here , and this here .  Together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:13, 29 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
List of black superheroes: The topic is surely notable but no information on why black superheroes are important and how they were and are depicted is provided, and cannot be provided in this format.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Ethnic groups ,  and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Tough one.  The article in its current format is clearly problematic.  It reads like a database and the sourcing is patchy to say the least.  However, the underlying topic is highly notable ( [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] and dozens more), meeting the criteria at WP:NLIST .  There is some raw material of value here, so rather than delete it, I would like to see it transformed into a less indiscriminate list, possibly as a spinout of a main list within Portrayal of black people in comics .  Keep I think the basic concept behind it is notable, even if the list needs heavy cleanup.  However, as it often goes, WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not a valid argument to AfD a page.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the article could use a lot of work in sprucing it up, but there are a lot of reliable sources available to justify this list's existence.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing.  When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples.  Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate .  Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up.  The rest is just cleanup .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough blue links to their own articles to show they are notable entries.   Any on the list not notable, as proven by having their own Wikipedia article or a reference showing news coverage about them, should be removed.  D r e a m Focus 07:28, 22 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