hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Nationale Top 40 Suriname : Its chart listing on English Wikipedia is sourced using Facebook and/or Blogspot, both of which are considered as unreliable.  The article's citations are majoritively supported by WP:BLOGS , other than I couldn't any reliable sources to proof that it's notable with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources and also independent of the subject.  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:59, 8 July 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!  23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The chart's data collection and neutrality are unclear, and no music chart would just track three items on a list.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:09, 17 July 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 23:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I am a bit confused by the nom, as both Starnieuws and Waterkant are news media of some stature and definitely not blogs.  I am not seeing any problem with the sourcing here.  It should not be a surprise that a Surinamese Top 40 list will be covered chiefly in Surinamese media.  Some more sources would be nice, but they certainly exist, see e.g. [1] , [2] .  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva.  マリオマリオ ( talk ) 22:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't see the GNG problems here either.  I'm also not sure why the chart's data collection and neutrality would matter; it's the article subject.  GNG sources should be independent, but there is no policy, guideline, or other form of consensus that says article subjects need to be neutral – what would that even mean –, nor that charts need to track a certain number of items to be eligible for an article.  The deletion arguments provided so far are very unconvincing to me.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:06, 29 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
Jeff Mateer : Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Arguably notable as one of the whistleblowers who filed a complaint about Ken Paxton , which made The Dallas Morning News call the group the "Texans of the Year", not just for the statements that led to his rejection as a judge nominee.  The article seems to have a neutral point of view.  Its talk page includes some additional suggested references that might be worth adding.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, his actions as general counsel for First Liberty Institute have been in the news, and are similarly controversial.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Mateer easily meets the WP:GNG with the coverage in the article surrounding his failed judicial nomination, along with sources such as [ [15] ] outside of that context showing that WP:SUSTAINED is met.  If the consensus is not to keep, this should be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a WP:ATD .  I'm also not seeing any POV issues here.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:USCJN .  Presidential judicial nominees whose nomination is withdrawn due to controversy are evaluated the same was as those rejected by the United States Senate, for whom "this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability".  Clearly there are other indicia, so this rises above that line.  BD2412 T 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I doubt this article will stand the test of time and meet WP:sustained standards over the long haul, but I agree with the other editors here that it does meet notoriety standards now and should be kept.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:55, 25 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
Joshua N. Haldeman : Calling neurocalometers "a then-controversial expensive device" also seems skewed.  Foxsake92 ( talk ) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as creator.   Welcome to Wikipedia!   It's very unusual for a user's first edits to be an AFD, but that's totally okay!!  Do you have suggestions for how we could improve the neutrality?   In response to your concerns, neurocalometer sentence has been reworded with attribution rather than wikivoice.   As far as Notability goes,  Haldeman was famous in his own time for his roles in chiropractic and politics, not because of his descendants -- Notablity is not inherited and the article text never actually mentions Haldeman's grandson, whose life didn't really overlap much with Haldeman's.  Feoffer ( talk ) 02:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Archaeology , Medicine , Aviation , South Africa , Canada ,  and Minnesota .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This source seems to be a good place to start.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve.  Coverage on [[ [1] ]]], [[ [2] ]], [[ [3] ]], [[ [4] ]], suggests the subject is notable enough.  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 00:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article currently cites these sources which each cover Haldeman directly: A New Life for Haldeman .  1951.  Leader-Post .  Joshua N Haldeman, DC: the Canadian Years, 1926-1950 .  1995 .  J Can Chiropr Assoc .  Elon Musk’s Anti-Semitic, Apartheid-Loving Grandfather .  2023.  The Atlantic .  The World According to Elon Musk’s Grandfather .  2023.  The New Yorker .  And the other language versions also cite in-depth coverage from CBC News and Business Insider [5] .  There are also: [6] [7] [8] [9] .  Foxsake92 , do you think this meets the criteria at either at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline ( WP:GNG ) or Wikipedia:Notability (people) ( WP:BIO )?  " issues with neutrality " can be handled at the article and its talk page.  Rjj iii ( talk ) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first was written by the subject himself and the second by his son; they're not independent.  – Joe ( talk ) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources indicated above.  Four SIGCOV sources were provided by User:Rjjiii .  Even if two are not independent, there are still multiple sources to support notability (and additional sources to support data).  Hence Haldeman, already, meets the GNG bar.  There are, however, more valid sources than the two that are needed.  Plus absolutely no BLP concern, as Haldeman died more than 50 years ago.  WP:SNOW also applies.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:16, 1 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: keep
Born Without Bones : No awards, no chart listing/placements.  Search actually gives you more articles about people and pets born without bones...  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , United States of America ,  and Massachusetts .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per nom.   The usual spate of WP:ROUTINE coverage and blogposts.   (At least these days we're spared Myspace pages.)  Ravenswing 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Coverage in SPIN should be enough to keep this one.  It is a major music magazine.  In addition there is album review in Distorted Sound Magazine .  Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews of a subject cannot be used to bolster that subject's notability.  Nor is notability inherited ; a review of an album contributes nothing to the notability of those involved in its production.  Ravenswing 15:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Music reviews by independent reliable sources contribute directly to the notability of the band that composed and released the album in the same way that book reviews contribute to the notability of the writer.  Also most reviews contain some biographical information as is the case here, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Minorly notable band, represented by a notable label.  This kind of band is not uncommon on Wikipedia and, as an inclusionist, I see no reason why it should be removed.  PickleG13 ( talk ) Keep The article has independent sources with significant coverage on the band.  WP:ROUTINE applies notability for events.  ✍A.WagnerC ( talk ) 01:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This band appears to have released at least 2 albums on Pure Noise Records ( Dancer , and an official reissue of Baby ).  WP:NBAND .5 says a band may be notable if it Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).  This is the case for Pure Noise Records .  — siro χ o 02:00, 19 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
American Desperado : Nearly all of the content is verbatim copy of publisher content from amazon (that actually no longer exists and cannot be verified), which suggests WP:PROMOTIONAL .   Simply existing as a published work is not sufficient to be notable.  Butler Blog ( talk ) 15:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Literature .  Butler Blog ( talk ) 15:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ebsco search finds reviews in Kirkus (Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, p1909-1910) and Publishers Weekly (Publishers Weekly. 2/27/2012, Vol. 259 Issue 9, p83).  Proquest finds another review (Cogdill, Oline H.  South Florida Sun-Sentinel 04 Dec 2011: G.11), an interview on NPR (From Mafia Soldier To Cocaine Cowboy Weekend All Things Considered; Washington, D.C. : NPR.  (Oct 30, 2011)).  The audiobook (read by Mark Bramhall) received a 2012 Listen-Up Award (The 2012 Listen-Up Awards. By: BORETZ, ADAM, Publishers Weekly, 00000019, 1/7/2013, Vol. 260, Issue 1).  Also suggestion that there was an upcoming film adapted by William Monahan (King, Loren Boston Globe. 21 Dec 2014: N.10.) There's a lot of press about it in around 2012–13.  I think the film ended up being retitled Cocaine Cowboys (2014).  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per compelling evidence of notability found by Espresso Addict .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per EA and K. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 17:12, 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: keep
Emil Hansius : Doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Looks like a vanity page to me.  𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 12:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Sweden .  Owen× ☎ 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't been able to take a closer look at them yet but I found some sources that potentially could be significant: [9] [10] [11] [12] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I've incorporated additional sources and now believe the article subject meets the notability criteria.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have looked into the page and added some further touches, and I also believe that the article subject meets the notability criteria at this point in time.  I vote for declining and removing the deletion request.  ~ User:Roi.Frvr 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per AlexandraAVX .  / Julle ( talk ) 08:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He was ranked as the 4th most powerful/influential Swede on YouTube 2023.  -- Mats33 ( talk ) 22:54, 17 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: keep
Lal Pratap Singh : In short, we know no verifiable information about this individual except that the Indian postal services issued a stamp in his name RegentsPark ( comment ) 16:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If there is a postage stamp is there not presumed notability?  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for having a photo on a stamp?  I suppose, but we need something to back up the reason why, hence the need for extensive sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, note that a stamp is a WP:PRIMARY source and stamps are often introduced for political reasons.  Based on the stamp, we can't say if this person actually existed, if he did, when he existed, and assuming all that, what he is notable for.  Technically, all our article should consist of is the sentence Lal Pratap Singh is the name on a stamp issued by the Indian postal service .  RegentsPark ( comment ) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except that you performed WP:BEFORE before nominating and found that he did exist and has coverage in reliable sources.  What sources appear in the article, whether they are WP:PRIMARY or not, is completely irrelevant.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Royalty and nobility , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : *It is not common in India to get your photo in stamp, only most notable peoples get it.  It means that it passes first criteria of ANYBIO.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  15:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- What I was brought up to call the Indian Mutiny of 1857 is now called the Indian rebellion or first war of independence, looking at events from an Indian POV.   In deciding to put his face on a stamp, the Indian Post Office is presumably identifying him as notable.   Without that, as the commander of a small military unit, he would probably be NN.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable subject.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:26, 30 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
Post-nut clarity : Shellwood ( talk ) 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Think prior to this nom, it was just a stub (so, as per the linked WP:NOTDICT : " One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, ").  I think this was a case of that, but in any case, I fleshed out the article to hopefully expand on it seeming like a dictionary entry.  Soulbust ( talk ) 11:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pretty evident coverage of this term not just as a definition, but also as a phenomenon which has been discussed at length in plenty of reliable sources.  If this is seriously in question, I'll come back and link several.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Huh, wasn't sure, it appears to be notable. -- Milowent • has spoken 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG, is substantial beyond a dictionary entry.  Air on White ( talk ) 00:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - [WP:SIGCOV|sufficient sources]] beyond a dicdef.  Also, it is similar to, yet different from Anagnorisis .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is a reasonable article to have.  -- MZMcBride ( talk ) 21:23, 5 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
H. D. Phillips : The Tips of Apmh 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law .  The Tips of Apmh 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: His term on the Madras Legislative Council may be an WP:NPOL position (state/province-wide legislative position), but I'm not that familiar with the government of India in that era so I could be wrong.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL by virtue of serving on the Madras Legislative Council but in addition looks like a GNG pass.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mccapra passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Madras Legislative Council and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 05:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:NPOL .  Did the nominator read the article?  Curbon7 ( talk ) 14:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  For the sound reasons stated by the last three users.  BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 05:51, 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
Famous Birthdays : Most refs are promotional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:c600:3379:c46c:cc1f:b9c7:9b5a:8453 ( talk ) 07:48, May 4, 2023 (UTC) Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from the talk page of this discussion page.  I have no opinion of my own at this time.  -- Finngall talk 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I put the more citations needed template as it needs more sources.  CastJared ( talk ) 00:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Near enough in article and a quick search in newspapers.com, google books and proquest finds more suitable sources.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  More citations could be easily added, but the website is very popular and notable.  Lewcm ( talk ) 17:24, 14 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
DxO Labs : Lots of social media and forum noise, but nothing in depth.  French article is of no help as the sourcing isn't there either.  Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography , Organizations , Companies , Technology ,  and France .  Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NCORP repeatedly refers to "organizations or products".  There is ample evidence in the existing footnotes to the article that DxO's products are widely reviewed by reputable sources; there are many more reviews that are not currently cited.  The natural place to group the DxO products is in the DxO Labs article; it would be silly to have a separate article for each of DxO PhotoLab, DxO FilmPack, etc., all of which are individually notable.  I agree that the company has almost no independent coverage, but that's not surprising -- it's a private company. -- Macrakis ( talk ) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep They filed for bankruptcy in 2018 [13] , [14] and their gadgets have reviews about them [15] , seems ok.  Forbes is a senior contributor, which I'm not sure if it means they're on staff or not.  Regardless, there are plenty of articles about the company and the stuff they made.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable producer of photo editing software that is well regarded and widely reviewed in reputable and notable publications.  Klausness ( talk ) 12:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all pro comments above.  Acabashi ( talk ) 18:56, 25 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