hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Maycon (footballer, born 1985): WP:GNG is failed.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There is sufficient coverage of the athlete's career.  [39] , [40] , [41] .  Svartner ( talk ) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, these don't lack the requisite WP:DEPTH necessary to count as coverage except, perhaps [3] and that's only a perhaps.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible weak keep There are two sources on pt:Maycon Vieira de Freitas and according to that he has played 50 games and scored 16 times for SC Internacional who are one of the big teams in Brazil.  I would like to see more sources know, if anyone can provide please do.  Govvy ( talk ) 18:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources and per an extensive, if not particularly successful, professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:37, 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: keep
List of largest libraries in the United States: I think the same information can be used in that article.  It is also the only article of its type tailored to a specific country.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 02:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Out of date statistics: List of largest libraries data back to 2009, and List of largest libraries in the United States as old as 2016.  The internet has had significant impact on libraries and their holdings.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries , Lists ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  Not a content fork, but an article with a focus on a specific nation, one that happens to be one of the larger English speaking countries in the world.  Out of date statistics are fine here and seem to be clearly labeled at this time.  (And considering Maile's point above about the impact of the internet, there may even be value in keeping statistics for various time periods.)  Meets the general criterion of WP:NLIST , for example: [31] [32] [33] .   — siro χ o 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as a  United States stand-alone list.  Different criteria from Largest libraries in the world.  i.e. - there is no way to quantify how many people visit the US libraries.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:23, 15 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
Cook Partisan Voting Index: Cortador ( talk ) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] retain : there are enough varied sources discussing this index in different ways, another example: [1] References ^ Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al.  State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children.  Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022).  HudecEmil ( talk ) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue with these sources is that they utilise the CPVI without being about it.  Cortador ( talk ) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] retain : There are several seemingly independent sites about the index, but also---if an article describes the index in detail , even if it's not about the index, doens't that satisfy notability?  AriTheHorse 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, you don't need a source to explicitly be about something to be SIGCOV.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's plenty of coverage about the index, for example [4] .  This is a widely-used metric for covering elections (cited by almost everyone who analyzes US elections, even though most of its mentions don't go into much coverage) and deletion would not benefit our readers at all.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  AryKun ( talk ) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We need to be careful not to conflate notability with sources that cite Index reports (as both sources presented here so far do) as against those that analyse the Index.  So, for example a source such as this [5] indicating that the PVI influenced their own Index would count towards notability (albeit this is a passing mention).  I suspect that there's enough out there describing the Index with SIGCOV, but we need to see those sources, rarther than just flooding this with examples of reports about PVI reports.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The cited references are more than enough to establish notability.  Owen× ☎ 17:36, 25 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
Akari Saho: Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual.  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it would make more sense if all members of the group (current and former) had at least a small bio section, if it were to be merged.  Then maybe it would be slightly unbalanced but not so terribly much.  It wouldn't be that hard to at least include their basic info and other accomplishments, because a lot of them have appeared in various media before, which could fill out a general "members" section.  Just my two cents as a fan of Akari and the group, but not really an active editor.  Yamakirisei ( talk ) 02:20, 11 February 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!  08:54, 17 February 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!  08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough coverage to establish notability within the article.  Clearly a notable person, for example, could quickly find two pieces of coverage about her recently getting a black belt in karate [22] [23] [24] .  Scant evidence of a WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources not just English .  DCsansei ( talk ) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree there does not seem to be WP:BEFORE ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:SIGCOV in Japanese media.  She was a fairy 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
The Lost City of Faar: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Pendragon: Journal of an Adventure Through Time and Space .  Kazamzam ( talk ) 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NBOOK /GNG Publishers Weekly review [9] Kirkus Reviews magazine review [10] Two reviews by two different authors in School Library Journal (one of text, one of audio) [11] [12] — siro χ o 19:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The reviews provided above should be sufficient for passing WP:NBOOK .  A reception section using the reviews should be added to the article, of course, but they do exist.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Kazamzam : wrote the following on my talk page "Hi, I saw your AfD for the second book in the Pendragon series and proposed a redirect to the main series article. Going through, I think that is the appropriate move for all of the other books as well. I checked all time of them and the best they had as an independent source was the Publisher's Weekly blurb and most didn't even have that. Would you be willing to put up the rest of the series under the umbrella of the AfD for the sake of expediency? Happy to discuss further but to me, none of these cut the mustard. Thanks" I have no objection to anything you guys decide here so long as I don't have to do anything myself!  I am sure your collective wisdom will figure out what is best.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBOOK per sources provided by Siroxo.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  13:35, 15 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
Raja Changez Sultan: Exhibitions at many minor galleries (the Louvre, but in Karachi) and no record of enduring impact, critical review or significant monument do not pass WP:ARTIST.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Poetry ,  and Pakistan .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another lazy nomination without a proper WP:BEFORE .  Easily passes WP:NARTIST as there is a ton of coverage: [89] , [90] , [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] , [96] .  74.14.185.53 ( talk ) 11:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After reviewing the article and looking at ALL the references, my conclusion is that this article about a veteran painter-artist is worth keeping.  I saw many references not only from the reliable sources like Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune and Youlin magazine and others.  This is a veteran painter-artist whose first paintings go back to the 1960s and continue to the present tme.  His paintings have been shown at many international galleries including Europe and the United States.  In my opinion, the subject passes WP:NARTIST ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 20:37, 23 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
The Fifth Patient: Basically a mirror of the IMDB entry.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no critical reviews found on Rotten Tomatoes, I can't see anything in Gnewspapers.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Keep , review at Variety [1] Donald D23 talk to me 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Variety , mentioned by Donaldd23 above, and [2] Las Vegas Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter [3] The film has received international distribution (different titles in Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German, etc.). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the film being shown internationally, showing notability, and the reviews that have been brought on this page, which should be sourced in the article.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The sources listed above are sufficient to support an article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:18, 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: keep
Wildstyle: Glossary of graffiti#Wildstyle is sufficient to cover this topic.   Recommend moving the current Wildstyle (disambiguation) page to the main title.  162 etc. ( talk ) 16:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's an entire chapter "Ornament as Armament: Playing Defense in Wildstyle Graffiti" [9] by Gabrielle Gopinath, p. 117-128 in Understanding Graffiti (2015) ed.  by Troy Lovata and Elizabeth Olton.  It's extensively discussed in the article "Graffiti" p. 336-338 by Pat Rafferty [10] in The Guide to United States Popular Culture (2001) ed.  by Pat Browne and Ray Broadus Browne.  Wildstyle is discussed on 10 different pages in Anssi Arte's Forms of Rockin': Graffiti Letters and Popular Culture (2015) [11] , this book contains a number of footnotes to other sources.  Please ping me if anyone thinks these academic sources are not sufficient.  Jahaza ( talk ) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jahaza : The article, as it reads today, cites none of these sources.   Since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, your help in improving the article would be appreciated.  162 etc. ( talk ) 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I wrote an article on pieces funnily enough the same day this got put up for deletion.  Would be happy to merge it with that article as there's already a section on wildstyle.  -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 13:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jahaza and listed sources.  As an aside, I would think that the sources being on the page would be secondary to the discovery of their existence, and if not used on the page (I haven't checked) then a morecites tag would now be more appropriate than a deletion nomination.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tag has been on the article for over 6 years, with no apparent improvement since.  162 etc. ( talk ) 01:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, but with Jahaza 's newly discovered sources, detailed above, this AfD has done the job that the tag didn't do.  Good AfD's tend to do that.  If none of us are going to edit them in, and I don't really have that much interest in the topic, at least add them to the talk page and someone will get around to them.  Since we now know they exist and will likely end up in the article, at what point does the AfD seem complete in serving what should be its purpose.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the existence of sources is what matters, not whether they're used in the article.  15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 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
Joker's Favor: Indagate ( talk ) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Found several sources on this episode ( [33] , [34] , [35] ).   I'm not certain of the reliability of all of those sources, so I could also support a redirect to Batman: The Animated Series .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  First appearance of Harley Quinn is likely to have more than a few references out there.  If consensus is to merge/redirect, then List_of_Batman:_The_Animated_Series_episodes , exists, as well.  - jc37 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This episode is the first appearance of Harley Quinn in any medium.  She was invented for the TV show and was only later added to the comics and movies.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Articles should not be nominated because an editor took a single glance at it and thought it was poor, articles should be nominated because an editor can not find sources, clearly sources do exist here.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 08:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , continuing what User:StarTrekker said above, the sources are quality.  Especially source 2 which is from the Hollywood Reporter and mentions the episode multiple times!  So, not just a barely-mention.  Gatemansgc ( TɅ̊LK ) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This topic is clearly both notable and well-documented.  The episode was critical to the inception of a character that is likely to survive permanently in English literature, even if relatively contemporary.  Albanaco ( talk ) 15:27, 28 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
Roshani Rasaili: The sources obfuscate verification.  Expressive101 ( talk ) 09:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Nepal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Even if there are no resources where you live, plenty of online courses are available in Nepali.  [19] If you do not trust machine translation you could withdraw this nomination and only resubmit it when you have been able to assess the available material.  Thincat ( talk ) Comment : Agree with Thincat .  You can always ask for help at WP:TRLA .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep one English language source found and added  and no reason not to AGF that the many sources are reliable and support notability.  En.wiki accepts sourcing in other languages, so one editor's inability to read Nepali is not a valid reason to propose deletion.  The sources for an article might have been printed books not held in the editor's local library, equally difficult to verify, equally acceptable as valid.  Pam D 07:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PamD.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are lots of reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject.  I agree with PamD statements.  Fade258 ( talk ) 06:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PamD.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:40, 23 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
St Mellitus College: Article is currently cited solely to the college website.  Time for it to go.  Sionk ( talk ) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Religion .  Sionk ( talk ) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Christianity ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In fact, the Church Times articles provide a pass for WP:GNG .  [1] [2] But then there is also an article from The Royal Gazette about how they have a programme in Bermuda.  [3] St Anselm ( talk ) 04:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:52, 19 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