hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ultra Magnus : [11] Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Given the recent developments of the nominator's block, I'll lazily copy from my previous ! vote: Kind of borderline, but there is coverage of him out there.   The article may not appropriately reflect that, but the coverage just needs to WP:NEXIST per the Notability test.   It's also a bit tricky when it comes to these transformers since there is so much cross-media possibility and so many variations...   Does that make it easier or harder to establish notability?   Anyway, that's a separate discussion.   Here are some examples of coverage:  1. Review from a major Philippine newspaper/outlet that also goes into his history  2. BleedingCool review of a toy  3. His movie death has been covered by a few places regarding what it was and what it might have been by io9/Gizmodo and by Den of Geek among other places.  4. Den of Geek also covered how his toy and character actually came about in the first place.  5. He's also in a CBR list of most powerful autobots.   (Yes... a Top X list... that's why it's last here.) -- 2pou ( talk ) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC) My opinions of the sources are unchanged.  - 2pou ( talk ) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per arguments presented by 2pou.  BOZ ( talk ) 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as he is indeed a very well known character in the transformers franchise.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 03:01, 1 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
Alex Andreas (Australian actor) : Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found promo, database records, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Significant roles in Short Cuts and The Tourist are good for NACTOR.  I've provided a good article that provides some verification.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep he just scrapes through with a 2nd significant role in the Tourist.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:28, 22 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
Breast Cancer Network Australia : Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , the Age and Herald Sun articles combine to meet WP : SIRS .  I fixed the broken link to the latter article which is still online but had gone stale.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - a search found references to support including https://www.proquest.com/docview/2792104665/6543886CE494464EPQ/8 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2661144843/6543886CE494464EPQ/6 , and https://www.proquest.com/docview/2816095417/6543886CE494464EPQ/3 .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Worth more consideration.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The "Tagged for notability since 2010" is only because nobody bothered to remove the tags, or had no idea they should have.   This article has improved considerably since then.  I  have removed the 13-year-old tags.  Wikipedia in general is like a site-wide litter path of such tagged articles that were improved, but nobody removed the old out-of-date tags.  Looking through the online site, the links, information and research it offers makes it somewhat equal in outreach to the online American Cancer Society site.   Pretty important links and information.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:47, 31 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
Simon Belmont : Most of the reception were listicles and rankings.  Simon quest's were the only notable, not him (He is not a complex character or something).  The only good sources were this [5] and perhaps this?  [6] Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games ,  and Japan .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is WP:SIGCOV here that is pretty major.  That combined with the Destructoid article mentioned here and the GamesRadar+ "unclothed gaming guys", while geeky, is enough in my eyes to prove notability weakly.  That's ignoring literally everything Smash related about him as well.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has improved since last AFD.  With the additinon source is good enough.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Oof.  I guess I'm mistaken something.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:09, 29 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
Epsilon Team : Single source and no more to be found Very Average Editor ( talk ) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions .  Very Average Editor ( talk ) 06:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories , Organizations ,  and Greece .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There were already multiple sources and I have added another one.  Ffranc ( talk ) 08:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the article seems good, at least now.   Btw, it is a good use of Wikipedia, to provide coverage of conspiracy theories, IMHO.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a lot of reliable greek sourscew about the subject, websites and books.  ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη ( talk ) 00:10, 18 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
Surrey First : As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence.  But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and while one footnote does come from a real WP:GNG -worthy media outlet, ORGDEPTH and GNG both militate that one hit of media coverage isn't enough in and of itself.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't disagree that the article needs a lot of work.  However, one can find plenty of significant reliable sources from national media on this municipal party.  For example, there's these articles from The Globe: Surrey Mayor’s departure marks the end of an era , Surrey First names Linda Hepner as new mayoral candidate .  From the Vancouver Sun: Surrey First: The political non-party .  From the CBC: Can Surrey First's political dynasty remain on top with a new leader?  and Profiling Surrey's political parties: Surrey First, led by Gordie Hogg .  There's plenty of reliable references, just an article that needs much improvement.  ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources provided by CountHacker provide the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per CountHacker.  There is a lot of coverage about them, meeting WP:NONPROFIT .  2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 ( talk ) 15:41, 16 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
Norm Glockson : Let'srun ( talk ) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , American football , Baseball ,  and Illinois .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't understand how you were unable to find coverage of Glockson - a two-sport top-level professional athlete - Newspapers.com has extensive coverage of him, e.g. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] e t c.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11.  Passes GNG.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' per Newspapers.com citations BeanieFan11 has shown and that I can see by searching the database.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:17, 21 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
Jaroslav Kravárik : Joeykai ( talk ) 04:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Exactly the same situation as in recently nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Václav Sršeň by the same user.  The article needs to expanded, not deleted.  Cswiki includes literature.  He played over 140 top-level matches in Czechoslovakia and won the Czechoslovak league twice.  FromCzech ( talk ) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per cs:Jaroslav Kravárik , the fact that he has played 141 top flight games in Czech, won the league twice and one cup there according to [26] suggesting there will be more sourcing for him elsewhere.  WP:OFFLINESOURCES , etc.  Govvy ( talk ) 08:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above.  Not fail in WP:GNG , the article just needs improvement compared to the Czech version.  Svartner ( talk ) 10:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - actually he is at the top of his field.  Within WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Expansion is critical here.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 19:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expanded the article with sources.  Newklear007 ( talk ) 09:27, 2 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
Aidana Otorbaeva : I am neutral; further information below.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Football ,  and Kyrgyzstan .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is, at the time of writing, less than six hours old (in my opinion, this is too soon for AfD).  It was created at 18:13 UTC.  Most of the sourcing is in Russian.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep No valid criteria cited for deletion.  It may be a micro-stub, but that is not a legitimate reason for deletion.  Looks like a clear failure of WP:BEFORE .  See also WP:EAGER .  - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Best and most well known player in Kyrzgystani female football history.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - even from Limon and RFERL alone, this passes WP:GNG .  It's quite remarkable that a female footballer from Kyrgyzstan gets coverage like this in more than one language, which, if anything, strengthens my wish for this to be kept.  Quite a few of the sources are largely interviews but there's enough independent content on some of these for it to pass.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 13:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , proper BEFORE not done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Jacona ( talk ) 18:13, 28 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
Musica a Palazzo : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Italy .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The group is still active and the experience they offer has a huge number of reviews on Tripadvisor (I know, I know, famous != notable), which makes me think there could be reliable secondary sources talking about it.  I couldn't find any so far but I probably didn't dig deep enough.  -- Broc ( talk ) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found a 2018 review of the group in the Seattle Gay Times , and a syndicated article ( here in the Baltimore Sun ) from 2018 about travel in Venice that gives the group a four-sentence paragraph.  Also reviewed in Lonely Planet Pocket Venice , Rick Steve's Italy 2020 , 50 Places in Rome, Florence and Venice Every Woman Should Know , and lots of other guidebooks.  It appears to be a quite popular attraction in Venice.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of the suggested additional sources would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Palazzo Barbarigo Minotto .   Notability concern aside, the article has a promotional tone, most obviously in the Reviews section.   For this reason, the entry on the Italian-language Wikipedia was speedily-deleted two months after the English-language page was created, and has not been recreated.   Though it sounds like the article might meet WP:GNG by its coverage in reviews, a subheading in Palazzo Barbarigo Minotto , appropriate because the group rents a floor of this building, may be sufficient and prevent a WP:PERMASTUB .   Finally, let's not overlook that the group's name is, literally, music in the palace .  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 19:36, 31 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
Jein-Wei Yeh : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  He is usually cited as "Yeh, J.W."  Here is a link to his GoogleScholar profile [49] .  It shows h-index of 94 with over 10 paper having 1000+ citations each and the top-cited paper having over 10,000 citations.  Even for a high citation engineering field these are extremely high numbers, indicating a likely pass of WP:PROF#C1 / Nsk92 ( talk ) 16:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:PROF#C1 .  I'm pretty sure "NTHU Chair Professor" [50] also passes #C5.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability would seem to exist through PROF C1, per David.  Eddie891 Talk Work 01:02, 21 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
YouTube headquarters shooting : WP:NOTNEWS , WP:NEVENT don't appear to be met - coverage is limited to the few days following the incident, which wouldn't even get any coverage if it happened at a less famous company.  I recommend redirecting to History of YouTube where this is already mentioned.  Perhaps merge a few sentences, as this incident is covered there in just one sentence.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Internet ,  and United States of America .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:PERSISTENCE and thus WP:EVENT , with coverage over several years after the event, as an academic case study.  Non-exhaustive search: Hundreds of words of of SIGCOV in 2023 paper in Journal of Criminal Psychology by Emerald Group Publishing [21] ~130 words in 2022, Feminist Studies [22] that references the next item Seems to be a few pages of SIGCOV in 2020 book Politics of Rightful Killing Civil Society, Gender, and Sexuality in Weblogistan By Sima Shakhsari, Duke University Press [23] Brief but nontrivial mention in a 2022 journal article in CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture , Purdue University Press [24] Short coverage in 2023 El Mañana (Nuevo Laredo) , Spanish language newspaper [25] — siro χ o 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Normally an event like this wouldn't be notable (and we could really benefit from cleaning this area up), but it seems that because the perpetrator was a woman, it's become a WP:CASESTUDY (that shortcut was just created today and it's already useful).  Of course, if there were a proposal to merge this into a larger topic, I wouldn't object.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Killuminator ( talk ) 18:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Hypotheticals aren't really strong arguments: if JFK was just an unknown guy when he was shot, his death wouldn't get the same kind of coverage.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 21:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the event's notoriety goes beyond number of victims and targeted company, as shown above.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 20:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  This is very obviously not just a routine event covered in local news, as reflected in the sources mentioned.  Steven Walling • talk 01:30, 26 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