hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Hire Association Europe : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business ,  and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 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Discussion outcome: withdrawn
Let Go (KMFDM album) : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NALBUM .  Multiple SIGCOV reviews in the first page of Google results: [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] .  Reminder to nominator to check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.  Jfire ( talk ) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I did check for sources days ago, and the number of reliable articles was close to none.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More reviews: [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] .  Jfire ( talk ) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - The PROD was contested without immediately adding sources to the article.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient reviews to meet WP:NALBUM .  I've added some of the reviews to the article in case that is a sticking point.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : KMFDM is one the most popular industrial bands in the world.  Sufficient reviews exist to meet notability.  Will expand the article.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This nomination is illegitimate because there is no evidence that the nominator put sufficient effort into a WP:BEFORE search upon PROD'ding the article (8 Feb), this AfD appears to be purely an act of disagreement with the removed PROD, and the nominator did not acknowledge the possibilities offered by WP:ATD (in which the accepted procedure for a notable band's album is to redirect when necessary) or WP:NEXIST or WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Regardless, this entire time the album has had plenty of reviews from reliable music publications as seen above.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination - Though I actually did look for references when the album first came out and came up empty, I support withdrawing this AFD.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:53, 11 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
Destiny Navaira : Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment given the detailed article and sourcing, I'm concerned about BLP issues, but haven't fully evaluated.  — siro χ o 09:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment she was nominated for a Latin Grammy award, which is why I drafted the article.  – jona ✉ 14:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Appreciated, but a nomination doesn't confer notability.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Got it, I wasn't sure which is why I didn't create the article outright.  I'd actually prefer it to be redirected to a sandbox rather than to be deleted so that I have a starter draft to work on if, or when, she becomes more relevant.  – jona ✉ 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no votes on this AfD, so if you like I can withdraw it and send the article to draft?  The only thing is, you'll need to edit it every 6 months to stop it being deleted, but if that works for you it would seem elegant to me!  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Appears to be a fan page sourced mostly by websites.  128.252.154.9 ( talk ) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Apparently, we are waiting for the page creator to say they are okay with draftification so the nominator will withdraw this deletion proposal.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AJona1992 Do you want us to move this article to your sandbox so that we can close this discussion now?  Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Userfy per the creator.  Good faith attempts by experienced user.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz , can we close this and draftify the article even though there's a 'delete' vote now?  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alexandermcnabb that delete vote is by Single purpose IP.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, you're right at that.  Liz is right, too, I was waiting on @ AJona1992 .  Happy to withdraw and anyone can close/draftify.  Not comfortable closing it myself, not entirely sure that's appropriate...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the late response, yes please send it to the draft space.  Thanks – jona ✉ 15:32, 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: withdrawn
The Gift (2007 TV program) : Nothing reliable found in a BEFORE.  Tagged for notability since 2018.  PROD removed because it "may" meet WP:NTV , which is an essay not a policy or guideline.   It did air 2 seasons, but I found nothing substantial for either season that would pass even WP:GNG .  Sending it here for others to weigh in.  Donald D23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Health and fitness ,  and Australia .  Donald D23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two seasons on Channel 9 at 9pm I think is sufficiently high profile that this subject is likely notable.  Issue to me is the lack of references establishing those facts.  In the absence of references my view is delete Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a possible reference: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/the-gift-series/25904 Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG.  The West Australian .  The Sydney Morning Herald .  WikiVirus C (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am satsified with the sources provided.  Thanks.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where does the sources go on the article that you are talking about now, @ Donaldd23 ?  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 21:55, 10 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
Adam Graessle : He went undrafted in 2009.  A review of Newspapers.com and a Google search shows only transactional articles.  Thus, there is no significant coverage establishing notability, failing WP:GNG .  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 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
Apple Jack (video game) : It got a decent piece from Digital Spy, but Eurogamer is very brief and not substantial.  There's seemingly a review from Edge magazine somewhere, but it's nowhere to be found.  All other reviews provided in the article are unreliable per WP:VG/S .  Nonetheless, with the little substance provided from Eurogamer and lack of coverage overall, I don't believe a substantial article can be made with the material available even if WP:THREE is technically met.  λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [3] This should satisfy WP:THREE . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nom themselves said it would be notable if the Edge magazine review were tracked down and lo and behold, Cukie Gherkin tracked it down.  Therefore it is clearly article-worthy.  Potential length is not a criteria for deletion, as long as the key facts can be described, and they certainly can.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said anything about article length.  Length ≠ article substance.  My concerns on the coverage from Eurogamer being slim and on the fence of whether or not it passes WP:SIGCOV are also not yet answered.  λ Negative MP1 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's some coverage by Retro Gamer : [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] .  Even though none of those aren't that substantial, and Eurogamer review is short, I think it's just enough to pass GNG.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 10:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG is met with Digital Spy , Edge , Eurogamer , and Retro Gamer sources (I consider the Eurogamer and Retro Gamer ones ( this one specifically for the latter) significant coverage).  Skyshifter talk 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is apparently a review from Official Xbox Magazine (UK) at issue 64, but I couldn't find the issue.  On another (related) note, Apple Jack 2 might be notable with reviews from IGN , Eurogamer , and Edge .  Skyshifter talk 03:25, 25 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
Indxx : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Delhi , Czech Republic , Florida ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 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
Dudebro II : IgelRM ( talk ) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Failed video game, but there was enough coverage about it in RS, should be ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Failed" is irrelevant.  I'm recommending a merge (of what is mergeable) because it fails WP:NSUSTAINED IgelRM ( talk ) 18:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is not a place for merge proposals, see how to start a merge discussion at WP:PAM (mainly the "How to propose a merger" section).  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 18:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but merge is still a common for AFDs and a merge would require condensing the article.  IgelRM ( talk ) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It won't have sustained coverage, it's dead.  It meets GNG requirements with what's given already.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm doubtful on GNG for a separate article with the sources about its NeoGAF origin.  But I added Bitmob and RedBull articles mentioning "Dudebro" as a meme in gaming communities, which might have GNG outside NeoGAF.  IgelRM ( talk ) 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game might be cringe and also in development hell and/or cancelled, but it got WP:SIGCOV and that will never change.  Wikipedia has never restricted games from having articles simply because they "failed" (otherwise, stuff like Hyenas (video game) wouldn't exist).  Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball and games can be restarted and finished at any time (see Metroid Dread) so it is not in our purview to cast judgement on whether a game is truly "dead" or not.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And because I missed what the nomination was actually saying, yes it did get WP:SUSTAINED .  Two sources are two years apart.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see the Verge source is from 2012.  Although that is still more about the NeoGAF origin than the game, right?  But it might be better to trim the article and perhaps consider a normal merger (like suggested above).  IgelRM ( talk ) 12:50, 14 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: withdrawn
Juvenilia Press : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:57, 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
William Maldon : After further searching, unable to find additional sources to establish notability .  It is missing Encyclopedia biography information such as Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours.  Created on 6 August 2013.  I did ask for help on the article's Talk page.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability.  Thankyou to all who helped improve this one.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and England .  Karnataka ( talk ) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I'm finding occasional reference to the subject in some contemporary and modern sources on the English Reformation .  I believe it is this "William Maldon" who shows up in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (see here ).  Foxe's is not exactly a strictly reliable source, but it does suggest notability.  Additionally, the official Seventh-day Adventist publication Liberty has also referenced Maldon's writings (see here ).  Maldon's account appears to have also been recorded in a book published by Cambridge University Press , A History of the Bible as Literature (a review that mentions Maldon's account can be found on JSTOR here ).  It's only occasional coverage, but there are instances of SIGCOV.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 20:45, 18 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: withdrawn
Release (Angel) : I only found blog reviews in a BEFORE.  Probably should be a REDIRECT, but it was redirected in 2022 and was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion.   Should it be kept, deleted, or redirected?  Donald D23 talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this one to Angel (season 4) or directly to it's subsection #Episodes .  Can't find any reviews in usual places.  WikiVirus C (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AV Club has a good review mentioned below and has now been added into article.  Changed from redirect to keep.  WikiVirus C (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reviews in the usual places are really hard to find with such short generic titles--and I think 'release' is about as bad a title as can be imagined when looking at popular media--nevertheless, there are a couple: AV Club , Screenrant .  The last one focuses on Faith's transformation across multiple episodes, so one could argue it isn't in depth on the episode.   There are a number of other questionably reliable reviews, and it did get mentioned in a Slayage article.  There's probably more somewhere, but again, the title is a real hindrance.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am confident that the reviews found by Jclemens are enough to establish notability.  Donald D23 talk to me 10:50, 18 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
Young-min Kim : Improperly sourced.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Distinguished professor with national awards passes at least two of the WP:PROF criteria (only one needs to be met to keep).  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The nominator is in good faith mistaken in describing this as a disputed draftification.   It was not moved from article space to draft space.   It was first moved by its author from user space to project space, which was another good faith error.  User:Liz moved it to draft space because it didn't belong in project space.   Its author then moved it to article space.   There was no dispute, only a roundabout movement.  User:Timtrent also doesn't say what is wrong with the sourcing.   The article has been reference-bombed , but that is not a reason for deletion or draftification.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article should be tagged as making statements in the voice of Wikipedia that should be attributed to other scholars.   That is not a reason for deletion.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR : It has been brought to  my attention that I misinterpreted the revision history, form which I apologise.   All ! votes are to keep and withdrawing is thus valid 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 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
Confusion Bowl : All sources are expectedly routine coverage that any college football games get – just because someone made up a cute nickname does not mean it's a notable topic or even a "series" as described in the intro.  Reywas92 Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , Florida ,  and Ohio .  Reywas92 Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This was kept at an AfD closed roughly 90 days ago.  I voted "keep" then and still believe the SIGCOV supports that result.  The coverage goes well beyond that which "any college football game gets."   The bad feelings between the two Miamis dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I added some of the context on that.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 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: withdrawn
MissJirachi : WP:BEFORE shows no reliable/sigcov about her mainly.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games .  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : what's wrong with the sourcing now?  Source 3 and 4 are RS.  Should be ok to keep.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : also briefly mentioned here: [16] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Internet ,  and France .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "WP:BEFORE" should include reading the references section, or explaining why it is insufficient.  rspεεr ( talk ) 16:55, 19 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
IFChina Original Studio : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Film , Theatre , Photography , History , Organizations ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 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