hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
La alta escuela: Boleyn ( talk ) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:09, 7 April 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!  07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - I have found 4 citations and added to the article, including one from Vice .  The reliability of VICE is questionable per WP:RSP , however, I believe that would not apply to entertainment and music articles.  In addition, the band may meet criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO , which says "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."  RolandSimon ( talk ) 03:21, 20 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 ) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 07:42, 28 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: no consensus
National Security Operations Center: Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:24, 28 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!  23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known.  It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency .  But that doesn't exist.  We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article.  We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose.  Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is.  Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:20, 12 July 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!  23:13, 12 July 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: no consensus
Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai: BEFORE showed nothing, link in article is to database.  // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per Oricon , therefore making it likely to meet WP:NALBUM .  I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist, Number Girl .  Dekimasu よ!  01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 22:56, 3 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!  21:39, 10 October 2023 (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!  22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.  4meter4 ( talk ) 21:40, 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: no consensus
With Honor Fund: They got some news coverage back in 2018 when they first launched, but they've gotten basically zero media attention in the 5 years since then.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Organizations , Politics , United States of America ,  and North Carolina .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:47, 2 January 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!  23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree, there is not nearly enough coverage or tangible political impact to make this a notable org warrenting an article.  Stanloona2020 ( talk ) 04:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes.  Notability is not temporary.  This SuperPAC may not be potent now, but it had its moment in the sun and generated multiple examples of independent, published sourcing of presumed reliability.  Mark as "historical."  Carrite ( talk ) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting mentioned by a few major news outlets right when they launched does not prove notability.  The fact that they received absolutely no news coverage once they actually started supporting candidates indicates that they are not a notable player in the political scene and never have been.  They shouldn't get a Wikipedia page just because their publicist got a few articles written about them right when they first announced.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more try...  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:33, 24 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: no consensus
Carlos Malcolm (composer): Doesn't seem very notable though.  — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Music .  — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The article currently cites two sources.  I think this article provides significant coverage.  The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129.  I can provide the excerpt if needed.  I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability.  I also found this , a statement from a Cuban embassy, and this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much.  This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact.  Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More marginally helpful sources: [18] (kinda self-published, again might be a SME), this (not sure if it's about the right guy).  Toadspike [Talk] 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found two mentions in this book chapter , one of which cites a paper as " Brouwer , “La vanguardia en la música cubana,” Boletín Música no. 1 (1970): 3".  I cannot find that paper anywhere.  Although these are just passing mentions, they confirm that Malcolm was part of the "1960s Cuban musical vanguardia" and moved to Poland (which was apparently common for Cuban musicians, as Poland was less "conservative" than alternatives in socialist Eastern Europe).  Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Toadspike.  Not sure how helpful these are as they are just passing mentions.  Keep looking though!  — Iadmc ♫ talk 10:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 25 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: no consensus
Global Tech Security Commission: There's no significant independent and sustained coverage, making this probably not notable for a standalone article, although mentions to it in articles like Keith J. Krach would be due.  MarioGom ( talk ) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and United States of America .  MarioGom ( talk ) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't know if the half paragraph in The Hill I just added that explains the commission's purpose is enough to pass our notability threshold, but I'm sure more SIGCOV can be found.  Owen× ☎ 16:15, 14 December 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!  19:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:39, 29 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: no consensus
Oliver Kizito: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than trivial mentions.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Kenya .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, in this brief profile, this , this , this and this .  Whether when combined it's enough to reach WP:GNG I'm not sure, but with what we have and what is likely available offline I think it's worth a weak keep, although I'd suggest a redirect to Kenya international players if a list did exist.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nice try, but lacks reliable references.  Two of the references on the page are dead, and those who are live barely qualify as substantial.  Of the sources provided by User:Rugbyfan22 , the last one could contribute towards notability, but we’d need a few more, and in different sources for this one to pass.  Would support redirect to a Kenya International Players list, if someone creates one.  ANairobian ( talk ) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:29, 12 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!  18:58, 19 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: no consensus
Draft:Edward Daniel Davis: Nexovia ( talk ) 03:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Nexovia ( talk ) 03:07, 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: no consensus
District Planning Committee: Article is based on primary self-published sources by the government with run-of-the-mill routine material; lacks secondary ( WP:PST ) or independent sources ( WP:ORGIND ).  Governments have many local bodies under it, but Wikipedia is not a database for every such orgs.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - two reasons.  First, it seems to me that a function described in the constitution of a nation state is very likely to be notable as it is likely to be closely examined by independent journalistic sources.  Second, a brief survey of GScholar shows that there are many journal papers and books discussing the way this works in India.  To the extent that it would be too much effort to discuss them all here.  Conclusion: it's a function of the state, we have access to the output journalists and academics who keep track of such things, hence it is notable because it is noted.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt Do you have any policies that support your position or can you provide the sources?  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional note : There seems to be content forking .  I can see one more article District planning in India .  District planning is done by DPC. -- The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 08:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A merge might be appropriate, but it seems to me that the content in the two articles doesn’t overlap that much.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Topic is clearly notable.  Furthermore, I second JMWt’s arguments.  Previously, the nom had attempted to PROD this article, an action inconsistent with policy that PROD "is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  I objected at the time for these reasons, and left a message explaining why at nom’s talk.  While the message was probably a bit too brief to be clear, well, see the history for their user talk.  Nor did nom ping me when they AfDed.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 22:13, 29 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: no consensus
Yakov Kazyansky: I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG , or a good WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  A google search for his name in Russian gives several hits.  At least 3 of these are about his role in organising the first ever performance in the USSR of Jesus Christ Superstar , which would probably be worth adding to the article, if only as a curiosity: Local/regional coverage: Yarkipedia: КАЗЬЯНСКИЙ Яков Лазаревич (NB: article is signed by author, it's not a wiki); Severni Krai (regional newspaper): Антиреалист Казьянский и его религия , same article scanned from the paper version of the newspaper [13] (NB: author of this piece is presumably the author of the article for the local encyclopedia); Yaroslavl region section of the Union of Artists of Russia (short bio on account of one of his performances): Концерт №2 цикла "Музыкальные среды" (NB: possibly falls under promotional, but I think it sort of helps with notability); Rybinski dnevnik (local news portal): В Ярославле отметили 30-летие российской премьеры рок-оперы «Иисус Христос — суперзвезда» ; Yaroslavl edition of Komsomolskaia Pravda : В России рок-оперу «Иисус Христос Суперзвезда» впервые увидели в Рыбинске National coverage: Article/interview published by LIFE (NB: unrelated to Life (magazine) ) (Russian Как "Иисуса Христа — суперзвезду" ставили в Рыбинске в 1989 году Participation in international-ish events: Prostokvashino festival (North Carolina) [14] (NB: event seems to cater to Russian-speaking diaspora groups in the US) This list is non-exhaustive but I think it might be enough to establish notability and probably allows for the writing of a decent enough article (it probably needs updating, too - he seems to have recently moved to the US).  Ostalgia ( talk ) 12:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:09, 14 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: no consensus
Musharraf Ali Farooqi: None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR.  Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG.  Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary ( talk · contribs ) Hammad.anwar ( talk · contribs ) Sibyl12drip ( talk · contribs ) — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations.  However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability.  This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly ( link 1 and 2 ), Kirkus ( link ) and many other places.  The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies.  All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards .  -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject?  I haven't been able to find such coverage so far.  Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy.  However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP.  So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The criteria for WP:Author states "Such a person is notable if ...  The person's work (or works) has:  (a) become a significant monument,  (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,  (c) won significant critical attention, or  (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. " Nothing in that criteria states that the work itself must be represented on Wikipedia.  Also, WP:GNG are the general notability guidelines while the guidelines for creative professionals give additional guidance.  If a subject meets any of the criteria within any of the notability guidelines, they are assumed to be notable.  SouthernNights ( talk ) 21:21, 5 May 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!  02:28, 11 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: no consensus