hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gosu (manhwa): Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and South Korea .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In English I see few other sources that announce the anime being picked up like the one currently cited in article.  In Korean, sources I see several during the run or at the end of the run of the manhwa are enough to pass WP:GNG .  [12] [13] Working on draft could of been done, but I have no issue with it as a stub.  WikiVirus C (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the two Korean sources provided both look reliable and provide more detail into the manhwa.  As there is no shown evidence of notability through English sourcing, this may regional notability.  I would look for additional things via Japanese, Taiwanese, and Philippian sourcing.  - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 17:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG.  CandyScythe ( talk ) 22:54, 29 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
Jerry Shriver: Remsense 诉 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and Florida .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep John Plaster's books are not ghost-written or primary sources.  Shriver is also mentioned in Stephen Moore's "Uncommon Valor' (USNI Press, 2018), Richard Shultz's "The Secret War Against Hanoi" (Harper Collins, 1999), and Robert Gillespie's "Black Ops Vietnam" (also USNI Press, 2011). And there are other sources out there as well (Shelby Stanton's "Green Berets at War" is likely, but my copy's packed away right now).  Granted information on Shriver is sparse, but he occupies an important place in the history of MACVSOG.  Intothat darkness 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Shriver is definitely a notable person, there are official census and army records of him.  I absolutely don't get why he would not be considered notable, the reasons provided for the deletion are very invalid.  TheTankman ( talk ) 11:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added infobox sourcing, which gives a narrative for three of his medals.  While I can't vouch for every single claim in this article, this man is certainly worthy of a KEEP for his article.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with widespread coverage in reliable sources.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clear pass on WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 08:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since subject is trivially notable.  This is a serious breach of WP:BEFORE .  The omission to adequately search is denoted as serious because it piles up more queries on an already overworked WP:AFD process.  Madness.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pr WP:SNOW .  Clearly notable.  There are issues, in the coding and verbiage, which can be fixed through the normal editing process.  AfD is not right place.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Appears to be a BLP known only for one thing, so maybe a merge somewhere (not sure into what though).  IgelRM ( talk ) 23:14, 25 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
Taye Barber: Fails GNG.  Onel 5969 TT me 22:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Several pieces of SIGCOV from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram , such as this ( p2 ) and this , plus somewhat in-depth pieces here , here , here and here (also pieces of questionable reliability here and here ), plus an almost-certain SIGCOV piece from Dave Campbell's Texas Football here (behind paywell).  Not completely sure if its enough.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football ,  and Texas .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as per sources above.  The cited sources on the currently articles need to be replaced tho, as they are just routine coverage and online profiles.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 19:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per sources above.  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 08:59, 29 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
Yasmin Siraj: Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Sports ,  and Massachusetts .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there ( WBUR , Wicked Local , etc.).  As I mentioned to you here , NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 21:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The two sources presented by Hameltion alone are enough to meet GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agreed that there's more than enough to meet both GNG and NSKATE -- TJS808 ( talk ) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for clarification, the nominator is correct that the subject does not meet NSKATE.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  NSKATE is not as important as GNG.   This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments.  Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in France ).  Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it does not fail Wikipedia:Notability and that's more important Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 09:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Several users argue in a way that doesn't concern Wikipedia policy.  Please consider replacing such comments with evaluations of sources in the future.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:13, 6 May 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
Andreas Karavis: Article about a fictional character lacks reliable sources .  The only sources cited in the article are the author's own works.  Tagged as needing additional references since 2012.  Geoff | Who, me?  12:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Poetry .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even cursory WP:BEFORE shows that this is a Keep with newspaper articles [6] [7] (which actually are mentioned or linked from the article), as well as scholarly coverage in journals [8] [9] [10] [11] and in books on literary hoaxes [12] Jahaza ( talk ) 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Come on, the sources are there people!  The Guardian , The Globe and Mail , let alone the many academic references , papers and pieces about the whole thing.  We're WAY beyond WP:GNG already and I haven't even broken a sweat.  Silly academic hoax?  Check.  Influentially, notably so?  Check.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of Solvay's students at it again?  So he could use the character?  No amount of sources is going to satisfy some people Skysmith ( talk ) 09:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Poorly referenced article, but also a poor nomination that is an obvious failure of WP:BEFORE .  Speedy close, seriously, and WP:TROUT the nom for skipping the BEFORE step.  That said, article can be tagged with {{ notability }} (well, {{ sources exist }} is better), I guess. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:57, 18 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
Autobesity: WP:NRV
 WP:GNG Joseph Zadeh ( talk ) 04:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Joseph Zadeh ( talk ) 04:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Smerge to Criticism of SUVs is what I would suggest.   Recent articles in places like The Guardian make this a plausible search term. — S Marshall T / C 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article needs to be expanded, but this is a growing phenomenon and the discussion is reaching new parts of the globe.  -- DaddyCell ( talk ) 12:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Criticism of SUVs .  This isn't really it's own thing.  The growing phenomenon is just that there are more SUVs and SUVs are bad, which is already covered.  No need for a separtate article here.  Reywas92 Talk Keep - Seems to meet the WP:GNG .  The article seems to be referring to a broader phenomenon affecting the entire automobile market and not just SUVs.  High WP:POTENTIAL for this article to be expanded over time if sources keep covering the subject in the way that they have been.  HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 12:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe Criticism of SUVs needs to be reworked; almost everything in the article applies to pick-up trucks or the market as a whole as well.  I just do not see this as a really separate topic and should be integrated into the main article explaining how the criticisms are becoming more relevant and how the criticisms are being addressed; it could be split if necessary but I don't think leaving this stub on a neologism for hypothetical expansion is appropriate.  Reywas92 Talk 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Merge and Keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This could use a move to a less interesting title, but the trend towards bigger cars a notable-enough phenomenon to warrant coverage in secondary sources about energy efficiency in general, e.g. this one from the IEA .  It is not just about criticizing SUVs; this trend is also affecting ordinary cars and pickup trucks.  Clayoquot ( talk | contribs ) 22:47, 20 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
South Treatment Plant: Can't see that the sources establish notability.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Can't see this being a notable plant, nothing architectural of note, beyond existing, nothing for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as page creator) : I agree that I did not add enough sources when I initially created this page.  I have

Discussion outcome: keep
List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin: Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Lists ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, I think this one could be merge d into Nahuatlismo .  At least some list would be OK to have there.  // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine?  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 16:43, 13 April 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!  06:34, 13 April 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!  06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded.  Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here.  The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 02:15, 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: keep
Ashiyana: Nothing found in BEFORE.  Tagged for notability since 2017.  Previous AfD ended in no consensus with "nationally broadcast on a major network" being a deciding factor.  But, does this alone make it notable?  Let's determine once and for all so the notability tag can be removed, or the article deleted.  Donald D23 talk to me 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan .  Donald D23 talk to me 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:NTVNATL .  Found 2 reliable Urdu sources (see WP:PKRS ) that show it was a popular TV play back then: Daily Ausaf , mentions it as a "PTV's blockbuster drama" and Duniya News , lists it among the notable dramas of the senior actor Qavi Khan .  Therefore, I think there must be offline coverage for the serial, but as noted in the previous AfD, internet was almost non-existent in Pakistan in 1997 and the Pakistani print media (both English and Urdu) has not been digitized like the English.  Insight 3 ( talk ) 03:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Insight 3.  Muneebll ( talk ) 06:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 17:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP as per Insight 3 . ... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:30, 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
Chris Casey (American football): After a search I could only find primary sources of athletic departments and one from the oregonlive{. }com.  No SIGCOV and in-depth coverage Grahaml35 ( talk ) 22:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  More sources have been added to the article that establish notability.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Jweiss.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Jweiss.  Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk ) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep more sources have been added meets WP:GNG .  Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 23:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football ,  and Oregon .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:34, 30 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
Antonietta Cornelia Vetterlein: And the same proably holds for some at least of the other women listed.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:COMMONNAME appears to be Cornelia Vetterlein.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Gallery of Beauties .  Also retarget Cornelia Vetterlein there.  Jahaza ( talk ) 21:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as Cornelia Vetterlein).  She seems to have been a significant figure.  The article could be expanded with other biographical material such as this . -- Ipigott ( talk ) 11:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anything else?  I get an error 404 when I try your link TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a historical interest, she has had a long enough entry in the Cosmopolitan - Page 455 .  Cheer.  IP God 007 ( talk ) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:BASIC considering sources linked in this discussion: [10] and [11] , and another source here: [12] .  — siro χ o 05:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename to Cornelia Vetterlein , as she was a historical beauty, discussed by scholars.  62.181.221.7 ( talk ) 08:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 18:29, 20 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
Vancouver Adapted Music Society: Perhaps we can come up with a firm keep or delete this time.  Looks NN to me, even with the research from the previous AFD.  UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Organizations , Companies , Technology ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , same as last time.  Same sources from my last ! vote.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per User:Oaktree b .   I am suspicious of second, third, fourth AFDs in general, and in this one I see no new reasoning in the nomination, no assertion that the first AFD decision was very bad or is now outdated by changed coverage in other articles, or anything else.   (I wonder, is the idea to keep AFD'ing everything that has ever been up for AFD before, until there's an occasion where not enough editors show up again, towards deleting everything ever questioned?  That would perhaps make everything tidy in a certain way, but it is costly of other AFD editors' attention.) --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Disability (2006) [13] ; full page feature in the Vancouver Sun that I think hasn't been mentioned before [14] ; short but multi-paragraph story about their 25th anniversary [15] ; and at least a couple dozens smaller mentions (maybe some bigger ones I missed though) in Newspapers.com.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:46, 22 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