hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Atlantic Baseball Confederation: There is no indication of significant independent coverage of the league.  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball ,  and New Jersey .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In searching newspapers.com there is quite a lot of independent secondary coverage from the present back to 2002 in the The Courier-News , The Philadelphia Inquirer , Daily Record , The Coast Star , and The Asbury Park Press (a total of 271 articles).  There are many articles about the league and not just coverage about individual games and teams (which also exists).  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do these sources provide reports beyond routine game coverage ?  It's hard to evaluate these sources when they are not present in the article.  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aidan721 I think I was pretty explicit that there was independent significant coverage of the league itself and not just games in my original comment.  Cbl62 has kindly provided links to some of them below.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 03:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See, e.g. this , this ( part 1 / part 2 ), this ( part 1 / part 2 ), this , this .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Per the sources provided by Cbl62, this article meets the WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 20:50, 13 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
Overseas military bases of India: None of the base mentioned in the article are in permanent operation, some are not even built.  Sources are sketchy.  nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Mauritius , Maldives , Singapore , Sri Lanka , Tajikistan ,  and Oman .  nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions .  nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand The subject is notable and it is fine as a stub for now.  It needs expansion, not deletion.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 13:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that some expansion will be needed but deletion cannot be the solution.  Agletarang ( talk ) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Azuredivay needs expansion, not deletion.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Most information is at List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#India already, but having its own article allows it to expand, plus the map is useful.  D r e a m Focus 17:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Crown Canyon: Sources are not reliable, many not independent.  I see some 2015 coverage of a similarly named place in Arizona, but based on this content, it does not seem to be about this community.  — siro χ o 09:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO .  SportingFlyer T · C 09:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some references are problematic, including Forbes (a contributor article) and AZ Big Media.   Of the remaining references, https://www.arizonafoothillsmagazine.com/in-house/in-house-news/retsy-bedbrock-partner-for-new-paradise-valley-crown-canyon-community and https://www.citysuntimes.com/real_estate/bedbrock-retsy-partner-to-co-list-luxury-crown-canyon-community/article_c4dc5cc6-9688-11ed-aee2-03d2d6968c30.html both seem legitimate.  I also found this one, from a television station: https://www.12news.com/article/life/home-garden/huge-houses/30-million-laying-around-afford-paradise-valley-mansion/75-06794489-4189-4dc1-a429-233bf8e45307 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Foothills magazine appears to be a press release.  Still not seeing it.  It's just a housing development.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Improve a Google search comes up with articles, mostly about how expensive the houses are in this community.  I found some articles 1 , 2 .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJem ( talk • contribs ) 18:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Including further discussion on the known sources Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk ) 12:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain .  For a topic to be notable, we just need two in-depth sources to establish the notability and here we have more than two sources: [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] .  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  129.222.136.103 ( talk ) 19:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to see some additional assessment on newly found sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While some references don't indicate passing WP:NOTE, that doesn't negate that others as Eastmain has pointed out do.  Oakshade ( talk ) 20:13, 24 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
Gabriela Rodríguez de Bukele: Being the president's wife certainly is not TanookiKoopa ( talk ) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 26 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Some of the references mention her in passing due to her husband, but there appears to be enough significant coverage in some of the references that indicate she is notable enough in her own right.  I would suggest the subject passes WP:GNG .  The article referencing needs some attention due to a few dead links (not something I'm adept at, sorry).  Knitsey ( talk ) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , Dance ,  and El Salvador .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject meets GNG.  Aside from this discussion, are there notability guidelines for the spouse of a head of state?  Thriley ( talk ) Yes, generally presumed notable.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on a number of articles about her.  See 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 .  I think this was a poor nomination.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Spouses of heads of state are presumed notable.  This presumption of notability can be disproven, but in this instance it stands as there appears to be plenty of significant coverage of her.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG with plenty of articles about her.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are enough examples of significant coverage in reliable sources for this to pass the requirements for notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of at least two books. -- hroest 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are enough evidence of the work of the First Lady and the benefits for the salvadoran -- JuanP3rs 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
David Wild: He's written some articles and books, but there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of him.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP BLP has been nominated 5 times for an Emmy: [9] , significant reporter to Rolling Stone Magazine: [10] , a New York Times best-selling author, book reviews: [11] , has nearly 200 writing and 45 producing credits to his name.  At the very least, passes WP:NBASIC .  Keep .  Based on the Emmy nominations alone he meets the basic criteria for Wikipedia's notability guidelines , which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:56, 20 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
Melanie Arndt: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless confusion with the biochemist can be resolved.  Reference 3 seems false.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .  I added six reviews of two books, enough I think for a pass of WP:AUTHOR .  The fact that she shares a name with someone else or that soon after article creation some drive-by editor added a bad reference (which I removed) should be irrelevant.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we know what her GS profile is?  She ought to have got some cites.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] This is a book field, not a journal field.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even authors of books get citations.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep Looks like a WP:AUTHOR pass.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Six reviews of two books seem significant enough for me to meet.  WP:AUTHOR .  Shoerack ( talk ) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article seems to be identical with one in the German WP, which has higher standards than the English WP (or used to).  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think their notability standards are strong.  Their sourcing sometimes can be inadequate (for instance I was unable to confirm the birthplace listed in their article), but then so can ours.  Anyway, this article was initially created as a translation of theirs, but has undergone significant edits subsequently to that.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:12, 24 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
Alexandria Harmonizers: although there seem to be many sources on the web, most are unreliable or lack substance.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on searching newspapers.com, it appears to meet WP:BAND given sustained coverage (outside of the immediate region even!) and seemingly well-regarded awards: https://www.newspapers.com/article/centre-daily-times-200-voices-strong/125568990/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-item-alexandria-harmonizers-to/125569014/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-american-alexandria-harmonizer/125569076/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/citizens-voice-alexandria-harmonizers-c/125569095/ (which refers to them, in 1994, as the two-time international champions of the Barbershop Singing Society ), https://www.newspapers.com/article/asbury-park-press-singers-offer-champio/125569119/ and four-time a few years later: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-press-reliving-barbershop-melodies/125569434/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/republican-and-herald-harmonizers-to-ser/125569484/ .  This is the first batch of independent, and largely in-depth sources.  There are more in newspapers.com and I assume other places as well.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Washington Post has maybe a dozen or so articles of varying levels of detail, one of which is https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/08/03/harmonious-hotshots/86150afb-1215-4a40-ae3b-1eae1e35b718/ .  Barbershopping: musical and social harmony ( https://archive.org/details/barbershoppingmu0000unse/page/126/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22 ) refers to it as Witness the fact that in the Alexandria Harmonizers, one of the largest and most successful chapters ....  .  And this doesn't really contribute to notability (but kind of does?), but in searching archive.org, I saw that John Glenn mentions them in his memoirs, during his flight on Discovery ( https://archive.org/details/johnglennmemoir0000glen/page/396/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22 ): I also took along a disc of barbershop chorus harmonies by the champion Alexandria Harmonizers, a taste I inherited from my dad.  After that, the entire crew slept.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based upon the reliable sources newspaper coverage identified in this discussion which verifies they have  played at the White House and Supreme Court and won various awards.  Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Ilija Vakić: Thus proposing for deletion as it therefore fails WP:GNG Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo , Serbia ,  and Yugoslavia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The person's position was the equivalent of a state or provincial premier or cabinet minister.  The Serbian Wikipedia sr:Илија Вакић or this URL lists as a reference Југословенски савременици: ко је ко у Југославији.  Yugoslav contemporaries: who's who in Yugoslavia.  "Chronometar", Belgrade, 1970.  Presumably he's listed there.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to have been the head of government of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo , which is an WP:NPOL -conferring position.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL.  Mccapra ( talk ) 02:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very notable, a member of the Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia .  I'm currently working on creating that very article here: User:TheUzbek/sandbox2 .  I've managed to find on him.  -- TheUzbek ( talk ) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL , but definitely needs references added.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:01, 25 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
Rachel Korine: Most articles that mention her are discussions about the films she has been in, or a single sentence saying that she is Harmony Korine's wife.  I found one interview with her but that does not establish notability.  Putting this up for editors to discuss or bring more evidence for notability forward.  LovelyLillith ( talk ) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Film ,  and Entertainment .  LovelyLillith ( talk ) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Delete It does not have the criteria of complete wiki recognition.  Khtibkiarash ( talk ) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) —

Discussion outcome: keep
2004 Copa Petrobras Santiago – Singles: Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The minor league ATP Challenger Tour events are notable.  This article just needs some sourcing.  It does have an official source listed... the governing body of men's tennis the ATP.  But it's under external links rather than sources.  I have now added the draw source to the bottom of the draw.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point.  Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've recently added 3 more sources (all of them in Spanish, since the tournament was held in South America) and another external source from the ITF website.  Of course I'll vote to Keep .  Pablito064 ( talk ) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let’s keep it.  Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Tennis ,  and Chile .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 17 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
Carphologia: Medicine-related, so also fails WP:MEDRS .  NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added 2 additional RS that comply with WP:MEDRS .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable after Nagol0929 added refs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:04, 26 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
Ahmed Zitouni: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per newly found sources Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep additional sources at 1 and 2 as well as numerous Google book references such as 3 (pp.21-22) .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Algeria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This smells of retaliation since the nom had the article about them deleted via AFD.  UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 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!  19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources already mentioned, which satisfy general notability, Zitouni's work has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research .  Cortador ( talk ) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG.  Any one of these would be enough to keep.  The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found here .  Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cocobb8 In light of the sources provided by Mccapra and Cortador, would you consider there to be sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR ?  Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found this , which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and this book , which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131.  Toadspike [Talk] 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Toadspike , I would, yes!  Thanks for the ping, not sure how I had missed those sources!  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 11:46, 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: keep