hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Théâtre Libre (performing arts center) : Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage.  Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 10:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and France .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Inadequate coverage.  If we are going to have an English-language article about this venue, someone is going to need to do a better job of writing an article.   -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP , it's a great article.  Evangp ( talk ) 13:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even taking into account the sources on the French version, it fails WP:GNG .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :The present en.wiki article text is horribly truncated on the long history of this venue, which can be found described as "L'Eldorado, the aristocrat of the cafés-concerts" [15] and painted by Sickert [16] .  Note also that, as per the fr.wiki article, a "Patrimoine du XXe siècle" designation was placed on the 1933 cinema hall (which replaced the original cafés-concert hall): [17] .  AllyD ( talk ) 12:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have expanded the article to provide a summary reflecting the history of the Eldorado.  More could surely be said about the performers there, but for the moment I included famous artworks by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Walter Sickert ; a performance there by Félix Mayol may also be reflected in Proust: all of these perhaps fall under WP:NOTINHERITED but indicate the Eldorado's cultural position in its era.  Anyway, the French Culture Ministry's "Patrimoine du XXe siècle" designation of the later building (apparently somewhere between Blue plaque and Listed building status in the UK?) seems sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:NBUILD criterion 1.  AllyD ( talk ) 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes GNG in its current iteration.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in light of expansion by AllyD per WP:HEY , which clearly demonstrates historical notability of this 165-year-old venue per WP:GNG .  Obviously there is room for further expansion (and incorporation of additional sources, including books), but it's much better than when it was first nominated for deletion.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY passes WP:GNG on improving edits made by AllyD.  Resonant Dis tor tion 18:30, 1 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
Haarlem Kennemerland : The team, which plays on a very low level, has not achieved notability on its own.  Instead, the page exclusively repeats information already contained in the HFC Haarlem article.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  On notability this would be a very easy keep.  The repetition claim, however, has some merit.  I'll research and consider it some more.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If it stays alive it will general coverage over time, and you shouldn't redirect to a disbanded club article with a phoenix club article.  There is basic coverage around, enough so to warrant the article.  Govvy ( talk ) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sufficient sources which appear to show notability, and other clubs in same division all seem to have articles, indicating a general notability for clubs of that ilk.  Giant Snowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman By "other clubs", are you referring to the 12 clubs in the bottom template?  Vierde Klasse consists of 55 divisions with 12 or 14 teams in each, so the claim that "other clubs in same division all seem to have articles" seems far from correct.  Geschichte ( talk ) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG .  Current content is misleading.  Article is biased toward the famous "parent", while the club continues on the license and registration of the other parent.  I will fix that.  Name should be Haarlem-Kennemerland FC .  While I support dropping the FC where it is not needed, here it is needed.  "Haarlem Kennemerland" is "city region" and that is ambiguous.  The dash was unjustifiably dropped.  Nomination is focused on the fact that the club currently plays in the Vierde Klasse, however it has played in the Tweede Klasse and under the previous name in the Eerste.  gidonb ( talk ) 16:01, 14 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
Projectivism : This article also does not have a neutral encyclopedic tone; it is written like a reflective essay rather than a Wikipedia article.  Even if this topic is notable, there is little benefit to the information that is currently on the page.  At best, this page should be draftified.  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Projectivism as a subject is certainly notable, and many reliable sources on it exist in the world, which is the required condition for Notability .  Nom has confused this with the state of the citations in the article, which was indeed not good: but that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject.  Nom is quite right to be concerned that the topic is notable, but wrong that the article provides little benefit to the reader: it introduces the subject simply and clearly, it provides helpful links to related Wikipedia articles, and it now also cites multiple reliable sources which explain the subject further.  I've added some citations and adjusted the article's tags accordingly.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 10:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Agree with Chiswick Chap that this is a notable topic but the article needs improving.  From the first page of Google Scholar alone I've found [29] , [30] , [31] & [32] .  The article certainly needs work but I don't think we're in WP:TNT territory; we are more likely to have someone improve this page if it exists in mainspace for them to improve.  This topic seems to contain some distinct but overlapping meanings, many of which derive from Hume's writing - I can see this being a valuable summary style article with various spinoffs to discuss various types of projectionism in more detail.  WJ94 ( talk ) 11:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Poor article so I sympathise with the nom, but the topic is notable; even the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a full article on it here: Projectivism .  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:42, 2 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
Solaris (band) : Fails WP:NBAND ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 22:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Proably keep .  For one, it does actually seem to meet WP:BAND #7.  As for WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS , what we are looking for are media that have a named reviewer and a named editorial board, and preferably an existence dating back several years.  DPRP seems to be such a source, and it dedicated an entire issue to Solaris in 2015.  In addition, the same site wrote up a review later [4] .  We also have these [5] [6] .  For examples of media that do not look reliable, we have progarchives.com where the reviewers have nicknames: [7] [8] [9] [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte ( talk • contribs ) 21 December 2023 (UTC) Keep (but clean up significantly).  From personal experience I can state that searching for Hungarian topics in English search engines is tough due to language inconsistencies, and it takes some extra work.  In addition to some sources found by the previous voter, this band has extensive coverage in Hungarian media as a long-running band in that country, including during the Communist years (e.g. [11] , [12] , [13] ).  They can also be found in books that cover entertainment during the Communist years, such as Social Currents in Eastern Europe The Sources and Consequences of the Great Transformation (English) and After the Flood - Progressive Rock 1976-2010 (Hungarian).  Their Hungarian WP article [14] is also much more informative than this one.  If the English article survives this process, I volunteer to clean it up.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per sources brought up by Gesihte.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:45, 28 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
Deny Marcel : Chamaemelum ( talk ) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Come on... this guy made 150+ in fully pro Indonesia Super League , which gets hella media coverage... so defo also has offline sources having played many Indonesia Super League games in early 2000s... either way I found [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , and [5] , among many more Indonesian sources.  Seriously...  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Second Das osmnezz's reasons, that seems to satisfy WP:NSPORT , though it would be nice to have more info than just his appearances and years.  Kalethan ( talk ) 21:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 19:30, 12 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
Ravi Sinha : Only confirmation of where the individual works.  Was tagged for speedy deletion, which was reverted, bringing to AfD for review.  I'm not finding extensive sourcing for the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Ravi Sinha is serving as Chief of Research and Analysis Wing which is same position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency .  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to have been a lot of news coverage of his appointment to head RAW a couple of days ago, and accompanying background pieces, but I don't know whether it just consists of newspapers reprinting a press release.  I really can't be arsed to check, so I'll leave that to others.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an appointed political figure at the national cabinet level per WP:POLOUTCOMES .  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 21:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES .  Maliner ( talk ) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  Big job - Chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing .  Lots of recent news coverage. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appointed as RAW chief (significant role).  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep though online sources may not appear frequently on Google search.  But this person has been appointed as chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing .  It's Indian counterpart of American Central Intelligence Agency . - Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Chief of Research and Analysis Wing .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:28, 26 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
Alas Pati: Hutan Mati : 🌺 Cremastra ( talk ) 15:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added sources.  At the very very least, redirect to Indonesian horror where it is mentioned twice with a source. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy Yank's sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - works by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Punjabi are substantial contributions to the Indonesian Horror genre and are notable.  JarrahTree 12:29, 14 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
OCBC Cycle Singapore : No obvious WP:ATD .  This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Singapore .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's plently of coverage here .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nimonation , I can't argue against Somebodyidkfkdt 's excellent findings.  Boleyn ( talk ) 13:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Castleford High School : A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Idaho .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found references at newspapers.com that date the high school back to at least 1924.  Jacona ( talk ) 13:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then add those references.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sufficient sources and evidence of WP:SIGCOV present.  Passes wp:nschool Burgeoning Contracting 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG.  Nominator should be reminded that AfD is not about the article, but rather about the subject of the article.  Your comment was inappropriate.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added a few sources, and there are more on newspapers.com, which I will add in the next few days.  Meets WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG .  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update -- I've clipped articles through 1975, excluding the quarterly/annual honor roll listings, reports of Future Farmers of America and of Future Homemakers of America, band performances, theater performances, Boys' State attendees from Castleford, dances, and commencements.  In short, there were MANY articles I have not clipped about school activities.  There were two article (so far) about bomb threats, and multiple articles about the school's dress code, involving girls' skirt length (too short) and boys' haircuts (too long), that in 1975 resulted in expulsion of nine males and multiple stories in local and statewide newspapers; all nine were readmitted with their too-long hair.  I'll be adding what I have found so far to the article's talk page, for any editors who want to expand the article with content that could be an ode to small-town American life.  I will try to return next week to newspapers.com for stories from the last half-century.  Now for some corn on the cob and strawberry shortcake with my grandkids... — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 16 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
Balghar : I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG .  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again.  Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing.  — Maile ( talk ) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep - Changing to Keep based on the rock carvings (petroglyphs), which I believe make this village historicaly notable.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - agree wit above.  Bduke ( talk ) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's been discussed in several scholarly articles (perform an easy search on Google) and clearly meets WP:GEOLAND , though I think most sources won't be in English.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There should at least be one reference to verify that this place indeed exists and meets WP:GEOLAND .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are rock carvings ( petroglyphs ) and inscriptions near Balghar.  See this reference: Journal of Asian Civilisations .  Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations.  2000.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Added 4 more references to the article.  Cleaned up and removed some unsourced content...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 19:10, 4 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
Electroshock weapon : PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is definitely not a direct copy.  There is duplicate information which should be merged one way or another, not just deleted.  This article is also much more in depth and longer than that of the taser article.  Deletion is not the solution for this issue, should be a merging proposal.  Seacactus 13 ( talk ) 00:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] how do you propose a merge??? PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PaulGamerBoy360 Read this here WP:MERGEPROP .  I feel this one would need a discussion before merging.  Paulpat99 ( talk ) 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Tasers aren't the only kind of Electroshock Weapon.  The articles also aren't copies; while they share a lot in common, and could share a lot of information, Taser is specific while Electroshock Weapon is broad.  - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 16:30, 15 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