hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Leyenda Viva : As I said before, "Two weeks on a genre chart without touching the Billboard 200, especially for an artist whose previous albums all charted in the latter chart's top five, is not very impressive. Beyond that, I saw a small handful of articles about the album's release, but no reviews or further coverage. Not convinced this is enough for notability by our standards."  Redirect to 6ix9ine .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 08:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 08:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Newhothiphop and hiphopdx are RS per [26] , we're at notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I'm leaning towards keep here just because of the few sources covering 6ix9ine's change of genre, even if the coverage isn't expansive and it didn't reach the Billboard 200.  Ss 112 02:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Oaktree b .  I don't think it matters if the album did not chart as compared to his previous work, Complex , HNHH and HHDX are reliable sources.  An album/record does not need to chart, receive awards or be certified to pass notability, although they help.  dxneo ( talk ) 08:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : 6ix9ine is a major artist and it is important to have his complete discography on Wikipedia.  Spuyrava 1000 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:4344:8B70:3531:4AB:921B:5993 ( talk ) [ reply ] Notability of the performer(s) has nothing to do with that of their recordings.  This is not a vote .  dxneo ( talk ) 05:24, 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
Kumarasamy Visalini : The single event of supposedly having an IQ of 225 is dubious as best and only 1 event, unlike other prodigies, such as Hirata and Ung-yong who have more events.  aeschylus ( talk ) 04:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Engineering , Computing ,  and Tamil Nadu .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Also known as the youngest to receive various certifications and is the author of several scholarly articles (now added to article).  Coverage is over several years, not just for the announcement of her IQ.  Rublamb ( talk ) 16:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG .  There is significant coverage of the subjects IQ test in The Asian Age , and their other acheivements and meeting the PM in The Hindu .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:05, 2 January 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!  04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looking for a few more opinions here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep story in the Hindu as well [39] , as well as what's in the article, confirming she has a high iq, but the article now reads more like a resume.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 11 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
University of Cebu : Ratnahastin ( talk ) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this school has 61,000 students.  I don't know about your country but in my country, that would be a very big school.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand how a university this big gets nominated for deletion. The Philippines has 1,975 higher education institutes . The University of Cebu is one of only 68 that have been granted autonomous status by the government. [18] Quoting our Higher education in the Philippines article: "In an effort to rationalize its supervision of institutions of higher learning, CHED has also prescribed guidelines for granting privileges of autonomy and deregulation to certain schools. According to the guidelines, the general criteria examined by CHED are an institution's 'long tradition of integrity and untarnished reputation', 'commitment to excellence', and 'sustainability and viability of operations'." [19] A Google Scholar search indicates several hundred papers that discuss the school or were written by someone at the school. This lengthy article from last month is just a sample of news coverage that's out there: Cacho, Katlene O. (30 June 2023). "Cebu's UC grads among country's most 'preferred' " . SunStar . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . So this school is a strong keep based on Google Scholar, government documentation, WP:SCHOOL and most of all, obviousness. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NSCHOOL on the sources mentioned above.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 02:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per A. B. - Ian Lopez @ 14:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I first saw this, yes the article doesn't have a lot of sources.  However, I was able to find a lot of sources for its sports programs alone.  I'm sure more sources can be found for its academics, its history, etc.  This article just needs to be expanded more.  D-Flo27 ( talk ) 05:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is this even serious?  Please conduct some WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion.  This is a Center of Excellence and a source of board topnotchers in the country.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Very clearly meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per A. B. and above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:42, 2 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
Richard Fritz Behrendt : Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt ( talk ) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Social science ,  and Germany .  JMWt ( talk ) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  His book Sozial Strategie für Entwicklungsländer has high citations in Google Scholar, but that's the only one.  The authority control box links to an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland , which may meet WP:ANYBIO #3.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Have added some refs (Two reviews of one of his books) and two things by Katja Windisch (Windisch, Katja (2005) Shaping Social Change.  The development sociology of Richard F. Behrendt, Bern , pp. 19-31.  (Gestalten sozialen Wandels. Die Entwicklungssoziologie Richard F. Behrendts, Social Strategies, Vol. 39, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 2005, 259 S.)  AND   Windisch, Katja (2002) Betrachtungen zur Sozialen Entwicklungsstrategie und Sozioökonomie Richard F. Behrendts.  Soziale Phänomene als Vorbedingungen ökonomischer Entwicklung, in: Victoria Jäggi, Ueli Mäder, Katja Windisch (Hrsg.): Entwicklung, Recht, sozialer Wandel.  Festschrift für Paul Trappe zum 70.  Geburtstag, Social Strategies, Vol.  35, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, S. 74-84.). ( https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gestalten_sozialen_Wandels/xX8mWf7_3rUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Richard+Behrendt%22+-wikipedia+Windisch&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover )  These seem to me sufficient to allow a clear pass of WP:prof.  ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep .  We now have five reviews of two books, enough for at least a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR from me. I think the other material brings this up to a full keep.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Following the information in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland entry led me to more detail about his career and many more book reviews.  Now the AUTHOR pass is obvious.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:17, 20 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
Skin Deep (webcomic) : Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Webcomics , United States of America ,  and Missouri .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Alas, no mention in my books, but we do have an extensive Bleeding Cool article/interview, a full article in Comics Beat (as well as a shorter feature [11] ), and mentions in Comics Aliance and Wired .  I can work with this.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Checks out and sounds like a plan.  Keep .  -- Kiz o r 00:19, 12 August 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!  17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Independent coverage in the Bleeding Cool piece, and the Comics Beat coverage are sufficient for WP:GNG .  — siro χ o 22:16, 17 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
Darren Burke : Fails WP:NPROF .  Aronitz ( talk ) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople .  CptViraj ( talk ) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Businesspeople ,  and Canada .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I hate to see this, the keep ! vote on this, as its such a poor article.  Its promotional and mostly about the company and will need a heavy copyedit.  However, looking at Google Scholar, I see more than 5 paper with more than 100 citations, so likely passes WP:NPROF .  scope_creep Talk 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with scope_creep, the citations probably do mean a pass of WP:NPROF .  Also, WP:DINC , though the article has been recently edited to be less promotional about the company.  There is also a bit of coverage that helps towards WP:GNG , though perhaps not sufficient on it's own.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 13:52, 27 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
Ryu Nugraha : ltb d l ( talk ) 06:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  ltb d l ( talk ) 06:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly notable in Indonesian football with many Indonesian sources already in the article and the internet (search up pemain ryu nugraha) with Wiki pages in 8 languages already with ongoing fully pro career.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 06:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] ,  among amy many more Indonesian sources (search up pemain ryu nugraha).  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 18:03, 14 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
Povratak otpisanih : Tagged for notability since 2020 Donald D23 talk to me 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Yugoslavia .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  Even if an article has been tagged for notability for a long time, the nominator is still expected to do WP:BEFORE .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NEXIST may be applicable, because a simple Google Books search yields a variety of sources.  – Vipz ( talk ) 14:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with what @ Vipz : said.  This article can definitely have lots of sources that will add to it but it's definitely not for deletion.  Боки Write to me!  16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Until we get boots on the ground, aka reliable sources that support the person's notability , arguments such as " He is certainly notable " or " Sources exist " are null and void.  Anyone suggesting Keep should try and improve the References section.  Take care, all.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A review of recently added sources would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It was a cult series of the 1970s in former Yugoslavia, and continues to be a popular culture reference to this day (as evidenced by frequency of the very phrase "return of the underdogs").  I cleaned up completely unrelated references (that only happen to use the phrase) [4] and expanded the article based on a rather comprehensive article in Nova [5] .  As said above, there are multiple book sources that could be used, although I did not find one available on GBooks comparable to the Nova article.  No such user ( talk ) 10:30, 29 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
Izzat (honour) : — Preceding unsigned comment added by भारत्पराक्रमि ( talk • contribs ) 14:31, 4 August 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 August 4 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh , Pakistan ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article describes a culturally specific concept and is well sourced and coherent.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This article discusses honour specifically in a South Asian context so it is notable in its own right.  There are far too many bytes in this article to merge to the Honour article.  Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This article discusses "honor" which is a culture of North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.  EngrShakamal ( talk ) 14:27, 13 August 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!  17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sourced, coherent, informative.  There is nothing here to warrant a deletion at all.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:00, 16 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
Łącznościowiec Szczecin : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No pl interwiki, no sources.  Delete .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A basic WP:GNG pass.  I see some news reports in what appear to be reliable secondary sources, e.g., [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] .  FOARP ( talk ) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Source analysis please Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  05:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG per sources found by FOARP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per FOARP 's good work.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:53, 23 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
Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins : Most of this article is just 16 sections of fictional in-universe information.  Grapesoda22 ( talk ) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question The nomination only talks about the current status of the article, which is not the decisive critereon for deletion according to WP:ARTN .  So was the required WP:BEFORE search done, and if so what was the result seeing that e.g. Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide a lot of hits?  Daranios ( talk ) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added some information from a 1995 article in The Independent , in addition to the refs already present from CNN, The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter .  Of the Google Scholar listings that Daranios mentions, this one seems especially strong — an 11-page article about the character in The Kenyon Review .  I agree that the article definitely needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup.  Enough sources exist (see WP:NEXIST ) for this subject to be notable.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 13:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are enough sources discussing the character himself that a reception/analysis/etc section could easily be developed that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits.  On top of that, this article is essentially also functioning as our article on the book series as a whole, which is an unquestionably notable book series.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:25, 8 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!  23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources found which establish notability of this topic.  Having not received an answer I have to assume the nomination is flawed because it ignores the WP:ARTN policy and persumably skipped WP:BEFORE .  Daranios ( talk ) 10:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per Toughpigs's findings.  TLA tlak 02:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The "Easy Rawlins" books are probably better known than Walter Mosley himself.  Per Rorshacma above, our article essentially covers the entire series.  The character is also widely discussed in coverage of the 1995 film version of Devil in a Blue Dress .  -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 09:25, 21 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: keep