hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Variety Tonight: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subject most definitely does meet GNG; I was literally already in the middle of improving its sourcing before you nominated it, precisely because I noticed its lack of referencing in the process of agreeing with your prod on the related (but much less sourceable) Here Come the Seventies — so it now has twelve footnotes in it.  Bearcat ( talk ) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Hey, I remember this program.  Yes, it meets WP:GNG .  It does have some historic information.  Articles does rely heavily on one source does include more valid sources - importantly, valid sources.  I see no purpose to be served by axing this one.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Multiple reliable sources, meets WP:GNG .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:02, 20 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
Sannarpsgymnasiet: There is coverage in the local newspaper ( Hallandsposten ) but to my eye this falls under WP:ROUTINE .  However I'm not entirely certain so didn't just want to PROD it.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator , BabbaQ and Necrothesp are right, and I think I was a bit too BOLD .  -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sweden .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A Google search turns up sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs an upgrade.  But the article subject meets WP:GNG .  BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:07, 14 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
Olivier Sadran: Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Football ,  and France .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seriously...  I found [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , and many many more French sources.  He is Cleary a significant figure in French football and has a comprehensive French wikipedia page.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly passes GNG from sources above, just needs someone to expand the article with it really Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] snow keep I don't think nominator did any research!  Govvy ( talk ) 06:08, 16 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
CoastAlaska: PROD was declined with no rationale.  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Organizations ,  and Alaska .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails on several levels.  Only one source, and its the official website.  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - I did an internet search on this, and added sources.  It's legitimate and a big-deal lifeline for public radio stations in Alaska.   The sourcing is out there, for anyone who wants to dig in and do a search.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per additions by Maile66.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NORG with sources added to the article by Maile.  They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:50, 22 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
The Movie Channel (British TV channel): I googled it, and found no reliable sources.  Avishai11 ( talk ) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep Please read WP:BEFORE comprehensively before attempting another nomination; 'it's not on Google' is by far not a proper rationale for deletion, especially for a network that predated that website.  It also has a plausible redirect target so this isn't getting deleted.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This was originally a separate channel from Sky Movies/Sky Cinema so it needs to have its own article, separate from Sky Cinema.  Also, a redirect is effectively a delete.  And to remove any doubt about its notability on the grounds of not finding anything via Googling it, I have added a number of references to the article.  Rillington ( talk ) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thank you, I definitely had a feeling sources were out there, and the 'redirection=deletion' line certainly fits; just letting the nom know that this isn't getting redlinked anytime soon.  Nate • ( chatter ) 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made by Rillington.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhivuti45 ( talk • contribs ) 11:06, 30 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
Addie Walsh: I have completed a quick search for additional sources, though I couldn't find anything aside from IMDb and other unreliable sources.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Television ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:CREATIVE .  Credited writer/head writer/etc for more than 1000 episodes of notable soap operas.  Verifiable multiple-time winner of multiple well-known awards for multiple shows ( WGA Award , Daytime Emmy ) (eg [31] [32] [33] ).  — siro χ o 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasoning above.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No proper relevant sources.  Is using only one reference.  killer bee 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the lack of sources is not a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process ).  Regardless, I have added in sources for some of the statements in the article.  I have no comment on notability.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, DaffodilOcean !  You're right that lack of sources on a page is not a cause for deletion in and of itself.  However, if sources cannot be found, the subject of the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  As such, the subject would not require a Wikipedia page.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources exist to verify notability as defined by WP:CREATIVE .  Rublamb ( talk ) 14:29, 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
Fremont Lake: Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm usually in favor of deleting articles on ponds and remote lakes that have little human activity, but this is the second largest in Wyoming and has a campground, lodge, and beach on it.  Sources with decent coverage include [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] .  Reywas92 Talk 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Reywas92 and WP:GEOLAND : Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.  This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc.  The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.  Here is another reference, and there are others like it.  Stony Brook babble 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Reywas92 , particularly the Gillette News Record article.  FOARP ( talk ) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources cited by Reywas92 have WP:SIGCOV and indicate that the subject of the article passes WP:GEOLAND .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:23, 30 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
Kirk Lynn: JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and United States of America .  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework.  I've added some sources and reworked the article.  I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work.  Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line.  Mdann52 ( talk ) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG.  He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers.  He has written and adapted plays in that same locality.  In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short.  (I don't find much about it at IMDB )  That's about it.  At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it.  Lamona ( talk ) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Guardian review and [1] , Kirkus reviews.  We should have enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ .  Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content.  Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment?  This is more passing than significant coverage.  I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Chatchai Narkwijit: — S Marshall T / C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  — S Marshall T / C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Thailand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 12 July 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, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Has been profiled by PPTV in a three-minute news scoop [31] , and in a spotlight article on the Thai League's website [32] .  Most other top search results are transfer news and match reports.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 02:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , among many more Thai sources.  Clearly significant figure in Thai lower league football (he's been called the "God" of Thai lower league by multiple sources, with Thai League 1 experience and fefin9eltyh has offline sources, having played in 2000s.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:38, 18 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
ArtZuid: fails general notability guideline .  coverage is not enough for a comprehensive article.  ltb d l ( talk ) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just added a few references.  There is more than enough coverage for a comprehensive article.  That said, I agree that the style and lay-out needs improvement.  Will work on it.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ruud, the GNG, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Rudd Buite, has been improved and additional sources added.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:57, 2 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
Inside Voices / Outside Voices: Some (not many) come from generally reliable sources, but the lack of reviews, charting, or other signifiers of notability does not impress me much.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Turns out I launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now.  Totally forgot about that.  My opinion clearly hasn't changed though.  I don't question Alternative Press ' s reliability, but their coverage of this consists of a Q&A interview (essentially a primary source) which I don't think conveys notability. If that's the best we got then I don't think it's good enough for an article. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the same sources and stance I provided earlier in the year. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; reasons provided in the previous AfD nomination. You know my opinion. SaltieChips ( talk ) 22:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Keep adequately sourced article.  If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged to K. Flay .  On a side note, if someone "launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now", does this not border on an "abuse of process"? -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AfDs were months apart so I'm pretty sure I clear any minimum time requirements, and I volunteered the info before anyone voted so it could've been voted as procedural close if anyone felt it was inappropriate. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Then I request a procedural close. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With it being all keep stances so far, I believe either a procedural keep close or a "nomination withdrawn" stance can still be done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does QuietHere wish to withdraw their nomination? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk ) 02:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already a keep so it doesn't matter. I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments which have been made in either AfD, but clearly I haven't convinced anyone else so I'm leaving this be now. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:23, 30 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
Magyar szótár: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  See hu:Bartos Tibor for an article on the dictionary's creator.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The inability of one Wikipedian to find sources in a language they don't read is not a reason to delete an article.  [1] [2] look like they might be potentially usable.   Someone who reads Hungarian or has access to Hungarian library resources might well be able to find more.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 October 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!  23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "Too hard for me to find sources as I don't speak Hungarian and there is no Hungarian Wikipedia article" is not a deletion rationale.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:46, 16 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
2023 Fenland District Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements.  Onel 5969 TT me 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for all the same reasons that have been discussed on every other one of these you've proposed for deletion.  You are setting a very high standard for sourcing and notability that does not currently exist.  All one has to do is go to the BBC and regional news sites and you'll find plenty of coverage of many local elections.  Bentley4 ( talk ) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the same reasons we have discussed on all the other equivalent pages you have proposed for deletion (Wigan, Luton, Cambridge, Cheshire West and Chester, and possibly others I have yet to find).  Stortford ( talk ) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The rationale for the nomination seems moot now that the election has been held and the results reported.  Coverage here [12] , here [13] and here [14] .  The nomination was valid as no WP:SIGCOV had been demonstrated, but for practical purposes it does seem more or less guaranteed that coverage sufficient to pass GNG would be available a few days after the nomination was made, so I'm critical of the nomination for coming across as WP:Waste of Time .  Rupples ( talk ) 23:16, 6 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