hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Hazelrigg, Indiana: Anyway, every reference to it I've come across calls it a station on the Big Four , including the one cited in the article.  The line is gone now, converted to a trail.  Maybe someone wanted this to be a town, but I'm not finding evidence that happened.  Mangoe ( talk ) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the existing sources on this article state any thing about this being a community.  One guy owned all the land around the station according to the 5th source.  I was unable to find any other sources to support this as an article.  James.folsom ( talk ) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not finding much, but apparently this couple got married in Hazelrigg, Indiana , on August 15, 1952.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that, it provides a point time to further scrutinize.  But, I'm pretty sure that at best this is a rural area known as hazelrigg.  For a population center in 1952 to have no discernible existence in 2024 is a a little dubious.  For that to happen to a place and leave no news is even more stretching of credulity.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not much more I can do with it.  The 1950 census doesn't have a populated place called Hazelrigg.  Donald's marriage license [12] doesn't mention Hazelrigg at all.  There are two obituaries out there that state they were married Hazelrigg, but obituaries are not always reliable.  There are not any other sources than GNIS.  So there still isn't any reliable source that says it exists.  The marriage announcement might be useful if anyone could find it.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I did an old-school trip to the local library this weekend and found plenty of material affirming that Hazelrigg is indeed an actual town which, though small, has a long and documented history.  (Please feel free to browse the references section.)  Multiple history books identify it as a notable stopping point on the Big Four that grew from a station into a small town with residences, businesses, and a post office.  It was also hit during the infamous 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak and visited by Governor Branigin.  I've gotten a start on expanding the article and have added some photos as well, but will continue to expand and refine it.  I think the material so far sufficiently establishes that Hazelrigg (unlike some others ) is a bona fide community and that retaining the article is merited.  ╠╣uw [ talk ] 23:25, 13 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: withdrawn
Lee Kelso: The only pre-wiki sig coverage I could find is a WSJ article (which is also not solely about him, but his company-related investments).  Even searching today, the subject does not appear to have any in-depth coverage whatsoever.  Being an anchor for TV stations does not automatically inherit notability.  I checked via Newspapers.com and Wikipedia Library, and couldn't find any printed sources that discuss him.  All available online, and in print, were passing mentions focusing on the TV programs, and mentioning him as the anchor.  X ( talk ) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Television .  X ( talk ) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem here, Xoak , is that Fort Wayne newspapers are not in Newspapers.com.  They are in databases TWL does not provide, namely GenealogyBank/NewsBank.  There are some longer pieces, but it would take a lot for me to keep a page on an anchor in a sub-100 DMA.  Take a look at what I've hauled up and tell me if I need to dig up more: [30] ; [31] + [32] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sammi Brie , These are wonderful sources.  Kudos for digging up.  So much so that I'd be willing to withdrew my nomination now.  Tho the article needs a trim and should only have information with newly provided inline citations.  X ( talk ) 08:57, 23 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: withdrawn
IEEE-ISTO: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Engineering , Technology ,  and New Jersey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 13 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: withdrawn
Irmulco, California: This location is non-notable; coordinates given lccate to empty forest.   This is one of dozens of mass-created stubs on nonexistent California locations created by the same editor during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS coordinates.   The fact that there was once a post office by this name does not establish notability; this was likely just a temporary logging camp.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw my recommendation that the article be deleted.   Another user has added some reasonably good sourcing and I think the article now has enough to keep .   The article's current state is exactly how articles about small vanished communities should be...i.e., not just "Xyz is a location at zzz coordinates, and it had a post office in 1858".  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This an example of place which was definitely "there" in some sense but about which we can't really say anything definite.  We can't even really characterize it well.  I've found one reference to a public school there, and another passing reference to people living there, but as the nom here says, the name and location tends to suggest it was a logging camp of perhaps greater than usual permanence.  There's some possibility that a history of the logging railroad might have more information, but without that it's hard to defend keeping this.  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep like many places in the American west, it was a settlement for as long as the mineral seam lasted, or the lumber mill was hiring, etc, and then when the industrial or commercial interest checked out, it faded away, but it was a substantial settlement for a time in a thinly populated part of the world.  It's part of the answer to the question "where did the redwoods go?" and I think it's notable enough to stay.  jengod ( talk ) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that places like this shouldn't be erased from history, but we need reliable sources about them if we're going to host an article saying anything.   All we have is a couple of statements that it was a point on a railroad map and there was a short-lived post office in the vicinity, neither of which cuts it for WP:N purposes.  If anyone can find more, then of course we can keep the article and say more.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for expanding the article; this is exactly what we need!  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:20, 25 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: withdrawn
Firewalk Studios: There are not enough information on this studio to justify an entire article Carpimaps talk to me!  10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies .  Carpimaps talk to me!  10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sony Interactive Entertainment per WP:ATD .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea, I will withdraw this and do a merge instead.  Carpimaps talk to me!  04:35, 24 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: withdrawn
Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jharkhand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:02, 13 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: withdrawn
Siege of Smoluća: Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace.  I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military ,  and Bosnia and Herzegovina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic.  [29] [30] [31] [32] Dege31 ( talk ) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!”  Well, look at the sources i put on the article.  There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed.  Orhov ( talk ) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Orhov : , I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD.  However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion.  You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures.  The other reference is a YouTube video.  I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov ( talk ) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article.  As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information.  Orhov ( talk ) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Dege31.  Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The book reference pointed out by Dege31 is more convincing than the others.  However, still not sure it would meet guidelines.  But, if someone is will to update per WP:HEY I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Request to withdraw - At this point I do not have an opinion on notability but can say that the references do verify the content.  Would ask to withdraw the nomination without prejudice.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 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: withdrawn
Bret Simon: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MUSICBIO?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Extensive coverage available at Newspapers.com; I've added a few sources to the article.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep thanks to the sources added to the article, not to mention the sources available on Newspapers.com and elsewhere.  Clear GNG pass here.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination Happy to accept I'm wrong here.  Thanks for your input.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:15, 18 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: withdrawn
Evan Fraser of Balconie: 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History ,  and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see how it fails WP:GNG, the nominator owes something of an explanation.  The nomination to be honest is a bit of a head scratcher, but I'm willing to admit that perhaps I've fallen behind the latest trends in the application of deletion policy.  He's a reasonably significant landowner and public figure from the 19th century Scottish Highlands, he's not necessarily going to have a lot of coverage in the Ohio Times or New England Journal of Medicine or other internet-available publications but he is discussed in relevant scholarly sources.  Was just reading about this topic the other day, see here .  The article maybe could do with expansion and more up-to-date citations but that's a different matter.  Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't see how it fails WP:GNG either.  Ben Mac Dui 18:02, 28 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: withdrawn
Daniel M. Thomas: The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written about his political impact, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it.  But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would suspect that the second Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is more historically significant as a body than many later iterations of the same, and wonder if perhaps sources can be found for this subject.  I immediately wonder if he is the same person as the Daniel M. Thomas who was elected as the first County Judge of San Bernardino County .  BD2412 T 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It is the same person.  He was a Mormon political activist who advocated for San Bernardino County to be split off from Los Angeles County .  Cullen328 ( talk ) 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed.  See also the county record .  I would lean to keep on the strength of these points.  BD2412 T 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, that's a lot better.  Consider this withdrawn.  Bearcat ( talk ) 02:05, 29 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: withdrawn
InRule Technology: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Technology , Software ,  and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 13 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: withdrawn
Archaeological heritage of Armenia: It is also undercited and without a lede.  TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per strong rationale below.  TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 02:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Armenia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - No reason to believe any of the issues raised can't be solved with time and more maintenance tags, article is easily notable enough to exist in one form or another.  Even just hiding anything you're not certain of and leaving a stub template should solve any concerns.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP --- The article is cited to multiple reliable sources  which seem to be directly relevant and to establish the subject's notability.  There are some Passages where it is unclear that they are covered by the preceding source, as seems likely; but even if those are uncited, they cannot render the topic non-notable.  The editor is surely not a native English speaker - most likely Armenian - and there are some defects of style, but basically the article is in good shape and just needs some tidying-up.  Deletion would be utterly inappropriate in such a case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap ( talk • contribs ) 17:18, September 15, 2023 (UTC) Strong Keep - As per rationale above.  Archives908 ( talk ) 00:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Archaeology in Armenia .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AFD has been withdrawn so it will be kept, I do think it needs some clean up though.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:21, 22 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: withdrawn
Luke fon Fabre: Having hard time to find more per WP:BEFORE .  Zero WP:SIGCOV .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 07:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games ,  and Anime and manga .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - for what it's worth, it survived merge discussions in 2014.  Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that time where the standards isn't high yet.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 00:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found and added some sources primarily focused around him.  Tintor2 ( talk ) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  "Zero SIGCOV" is a serious allegation for an article that cites 50-odd sources.  Are you willing to do a source analysis to prove this point?  Just at a glance, I see multiple published books cited in the ref list.  Per WP:SIGCOV , significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material so mentions within reviews may be significant or not significant but that would be revealed by a detailed source review.  Axem Titanium ( talk ) 15:57, 31 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: withdrawn
Ihavandhoo Health Centre: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine ,  and Maldives .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 13 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: withdrawn