hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Id Tech 7: Merko ( talk ) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology .  Merko ( talk ) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems like an ok WP:SPLIT , and also probably meets GNG/NSOFT on its own.  [22] [23] , and note that there is a lot of secondary coverage of an interview that a developer gave (i.e. not the interview itself, but secondary coverage thereof), eg [24] [25] .  — siro χ o 10:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eurogamer article isn't inherently about id Tech 7.  GND-Tech is a listicle which has passing mentions of id Tech, let alone id Tech 7.  TechRadar and Vice articles are blogspam.  Merko ( talk ) 13:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable (proprietary) software product used in a notable game ( Doom Eternal ).  The engine has a sufficient amount of reporting on its own, but also there is a lot of reporting about the way it was used in the game.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you give some examples?  Merko ( talk ) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disclaimer: I never actually played the any games created with Id Tech 7, so can't judge how accurate the reporting is, however I believe the following sources should be usable: - Doom Eternal ushers in idTech 7, bloody new powers ( Ars Technica - a tech news and editorial reviews site, generally considered reliable in technology matters, so probably is OK in gaming too) - Doom Eternal analysis: how id Tech 7 pushes current-gen consoles to the limit ( Eurogamer - gaming news site) - Doom Eternal on Stadia looks great - but the lag is just too high (Eurogamer - same gaming news site) Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in relation to other articles on Wikipedia, this is relatively notable.  It's well referenced.  I can't see a reason to delete this article.  (Although the article itself could be improved).  - Master Of Ninja ( talk ) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the article could be improved.  Unfortunately, low quality is typical for most consumer software/technology product articles on Wikipedia, so it is sufficiently decent in its category.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Alen Kozić: Joeykai ( talk ) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 08:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below.  Giant Snowman 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Serbia and Florida .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found [16] , [17] , and [18] , among many more sources.  Played in MLS , America top flight and career in ealry 2000s so definitely has offline sources as well.  Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Links 1 and 3 unavailable, link 2 is just a results page?  Giant Snowman 14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , is it enough?  I am not so sure.  Depends on what others find, give me a ping, if other people find better sources.  It does look like an article that can go either way of GNG.  Govvy ( talk ) 19:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [23] [24] are match reports and [25] [26] mention him once each.  He does however at least have some coverage in the The Tampa Tribune [27] [28] [29] Alvaldi ( talk ) 22:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with this significant coverage from the The Tampa Tribune [30] [31] [32] , South Florida Sun Sentinel [33] and the St. Petersburg Times [34] .  Pinging @ GiantSnowman and @ Govvy if you want to review them.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 22:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Cheers @ Alvaldi : Looks a lot better, the article still needs improving, fixing up better.  Also the photo looks like it was a scan of a newspaper, is that a copyvio image?  Govvy ( talk ) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 04:41, 20 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
Chad Kultgen: There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece.  The rest are all either reviews of his books, or minor article about being sued over a podcast.  One or more of his books could possibly be considered notable, but notability is not inherited, so those articles need to be created separately.  Also note this was deleted back in 2011 and re-created in 2012.  I haven't seen the deleted version as the history is not merged.  Iggy pop goes the weasel ( talk ) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to pass AUTHOR with reviews [5] , [6] .  With the NY Times article, I think we're ok for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Plenty of articles about the George Carlin AI special, mentioning this person, and the lawsuit involved.  Depending how it goes, could either be famous or infamous.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : widespread, active coverage going on with George Carlin .  She was a fairy 02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece.  is evidence of a BEFORE failure; the NYT so rarely writes about people that no other RS is covering, the more prudent move is to assume you've missed something else and keep looking.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:52, 21 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
Paul Harris (film critic): Unable to find WP:SIGCOV .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Radio ,  and Australia .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only indepth coverage is the first gnews hit, other than that he fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Was unable to find anything about him that would pass WP:SIGCOV .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With the new source it passes WP:GNG .  I will admit it was hard to find sources on this guy, he had the perfect storm of problems, a common name and lots of material he wrote as a film critic.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep was easily able to find SIGCOV including specific coverage of his retirement from Sydney Morning herald.  Linked in article.  Please WP:BEFORE more thoroughly before advocating for deletions.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been hard to find sources with Newspapers.com being down just wondering how did you find that article?  I got swamped with a bunch of noise with other Paul Harris's and what I could find about him was just some of his reviews.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My search into Google read: ["Paul Harris" Melbourne] it was the 8th link on the first page Jack4576 ( talk ) 04:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well now I feel real silly thanks for letting me know.  As I said when I changed my vote I think this guy is a strange edge case but still passes WP:GNG .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To discuss the last comment.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC per above arguments.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 05:42, 13 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
Steveston-London Secondary School: sources found in a quick search are trivial mentions ( [1] [2] [3] ).  ltb d l ( talk ) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada .  ltb d l ( talk ) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 24 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!  04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG , as do pretty much all secondary schools in western countries.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ necrothesp : prove it.  with sources.  ltb d l ( talk ) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep .  Grand'mere Eugene has found 10 sources from newspapers.com that, in my assessment, show the subject to meets WP:GNG .  As with many other secondary schools in the Richmond School District , they are under-sourced and written poorly.  As opposed to deletion, these articles should all be drafted until additional sources are gathered to meet WP:GNG .  Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:25, 5 October 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!  03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep .  I clipped 10 sources from newspapers.com and listed them on the article's talk page , demonstrating the subject's notability for User:ltbdl .  However, the state of the current article is pretty bad, and other editors are welcome to use these sources in a WP:HEY effort.  For now,  I agree with Sink Cat that the appropriate action is to draftify It does needs a complete overhaul, but the available sources demonstrate it is a notable subject. .  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree with this assessment.  I've looked at the other articles in the school district as well ( some are full on stubs ), and put banners on the ones that needed additional citations or work done.  Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Because in my admin judgement, draftify doesn't make sense when sourcing (thanks  Grand'mere Eugene) has been identified.  Please assess those sources to determine whether they're sufficient for the school to remain.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:46, 15 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
The Tao of Zen: Possible WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but I am not sure if the title is ambiguous.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  @ Boleyn : Added some citations.  There are also several books that cite Grigg extensively, including a University of Toronto Press one you can view through Project MUSE.  (Sorry have to run now.)  The book is actually from 1938.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:45, 16 June 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!  07:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , feel this makes the cut with what's been added.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 07:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep from me as well per WP:GNG .  In addition to what's been added to the article, I found that the book is widely cited in other books, like this one and this one .  Just haven't had a chance to go back to read carefully, assess what's most relevant/important, etc.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:50, 23 June 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
Balsamic Moon: Innisfree987 ( talk ) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality and Science .  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I'm seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in books from perfectly respectable publishers.  It has an entry in DK's "Complete Idiot's Guide to Astrology , for instance. — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We consider the complete idiot’s guide a reliable source?  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 06:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Depends.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would appreciate if you could elaborate.  It’s not that I didn’t look at sources before nominating, it’s that they all seemed fringe rather than credibly fact-checked work.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Merge to Western astrology based on Moriwen 's BEFORE.  Chetsford ( talk ) 05:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Need clearer consensus for keep ! votes.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not discussed in sources outside the fringe bubble.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 03:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  @ Innisfree987 , if the guide is published by Dorling Kindersley then I'd say it's more reliable than not.  Did a cursory search (though I should be working) and the term does come up in terms of astrology... so it's fringe, but astrology was a big deal back in the day.  Okay, to conclude lean keep .  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - discussed in many books - per WP:BEFORE .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:29, 26 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
Yakob Elias: Source search (string:"yakob elias") returns nothing.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 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!  22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clean up and sourcing is not deletion.  A Metropolitan of a major diocese is notable by virtue of his office per WP:BISHOPS .  I still believe sources may exist offline.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  This church is a part of the wider Orthodox church and there is no reason why its bishops would not be notable.  Keralan bishops of all denominations seem to be challenged more than European ones, presumably because most sources will be in the local languages and/or offline.  Here are some additional Eng lang ones, searching on "Yakob Mar Elias": [59] , [60] , [61] .  Ingratis ( talk ) 05:25, 28 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
Salman Muqtadir: Didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  All of sources are interview (primary) or passing mentions and also promotional.  Fails WP:GNG .  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with you.  Hrksmp ( talk ) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , some celebrity coverage in RS, I think there's enough for a notability ! vote [16] , [17] and [18] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: WP:DAILYSTAR in relation to 3rd link.  DhakaTribune articles demonstrate notability though.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  Not enough sources to support notability.  Sources found are very weak.  Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - only references are social media or local news media from Dhaka .  Willing to change my mind with more, contradicting evidence.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep - Has persistent coverage in national media enough to pass notability guidelines.  More sources are available, and the article should be expanded and improved.  Deletion is not clean-up.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep articles from Dhaka Tribune from Oaktree b pursuade me as to notability.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some of the cited sources seems sufficient in establishing notability.  But the article certainly needs more improvement, since none of the sources supported the claims on his participation in dramas and enrollment in North South University.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 05:00, 12 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
Samsung Galaxy Tab A8: But, this article was moved to mainspace because of old article per WP:DRAFTIFY .  Hajoon0102 💬 01:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hajoon0102 , didn't you create this article?  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I already know.  But, the article has no references, and there must be comments from other users.  Hajoon0102 💬 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has reviews from well established outlets like Android Police AndroidAuthority and Indian Express Sohom ( talk ) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have added the sources and expanded the article.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets GNG and has received coverage.  777burger user talk contribs 22:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on coverage meets GNG.  Bikerose ( talk ) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep