hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of accolades received by Anupamaa : No need to make a separate page for it.  There are several shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah , Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai , Kundali Bhagya , Kumkum Bhagya etc which are running since years even before this show and received much more accolades than this one.  If we start making accolades pages for every TV series then wikipedia will be filled with unnecessary articles only.  Pri2000 ( talk ) 11:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article is unnecessary, no significant coverage of number of awards received by the show.  Therefore it should be merged with the show's article.  Thanks.  Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 12:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Awards , Lists ,  and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge .  Does not seem like nom or delete ! voter actually prefer deletion, so I think this discussion would have been better on one of the articles talk pages.  — siro χ o 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - To Anupamaa per nomination.  I agree with @ Siroxo its a proposal  that can be discussed on the talkpage itself rather than AFD .  Thanks -- C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 17:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge : Per nom.  Doesn't have sufficient data to have its own article.  Ajeeb Prani ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main article.  ManaliJain ( talk ) 04:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – The list seems to be right on the edge of acceptability for a standalone article; several FLs are of a similar length, including the awards lists for Community (60 noms) and The Bill (42 noms).  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 03:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, just because other shows haven't split out their awards lists doesn't mean this show can't have that ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ).  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 03:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main article.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  I see no reason this can't be in the main article.  StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:47, 1 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: merge
2018 Pacific Rugby League Tests : CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information.  Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy .  Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:13, 24 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 28 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England , Oceania , Australia ,  and New Zealand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2018 .  No need for a separate page.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, and convert to redirect .  I completely agree with J Mo 101.  WP isn't solely a database, and necessary elements of a database needed on Wikipedia should be prosified.  I would suggest that this standard apply to all pages and separate articles when article size isn't an issue.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 17:24, 29 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: merge
Elsa Salazar Cade : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A merge with William H. Cade should be considered.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A Bill Cade and Elsa Salazar Cade Scholarship in Evolutionary Ecology exists: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/artsci/biological-sciences though not seeing much in terms of citations on https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Elsa+Salazar+Cade&btnG= and I'm not sure how important the National Science Teachers Association award is. I'm learning towards a merge with William H. Cade ... - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to William H. Cade .  I don't think there's sufficient independant sourcing to warrant two separate articles.  I've not looked into how notable her husband is on his own, and given some of the achievements are as a couple perhaps a combined article should be considered rather than a simple merge into his one.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with "Merge" : Evidence of independent notability not established but as an aid to navigation it makes sense.   -- Otr500 ( talk ) 04:47, 31 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: merge
Fund for Adult Education : Seems to be borderline on notability.  Let's have the community decide.  UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ford Foundation : Fails WP:GNG as a stand alone article 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the original author of this article.  I have now added more references to demonstrate notability.  I would propose that this is notable apart from the Ford Foundation article because it operated semi-independently of the foundation (e.g., was not exclusively a grantmaking project) and there is specific news coverage of the activities of the FAE.  Ef726 ( talk ) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I approved through AfC and then sent it back to mainspace after another editor sent back to draft.  I included some of the many references about the organization which can be found on Newspapers.com through a WP:BEFORE search.  There is not too much recent coverage as it is now defunct.  I don't see an issue with it being merged to the Ford Foundation but based on the significant coverage it would need to covered somehow.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ford Foundation as per above.  Out of all the cited sourced, only the article by Edelson and the article  from Petersburg Times can be considered SIGCOV.  other coverage that I found are either trivial mentions or covered as part of Ford Foundation's contribution to adult education.  There does not seem to be enough coverage and content to justify a stand alone article.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 10:08, 25 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: merge
Laszlo Birinyi: BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Finance ,  and Hungary .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep as nom I'd copied his name wrong when doing my BEFORE, he's likely notable BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 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: speedy keep
Paweł Borys: — Maile ( talk ) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  — Maile ( talk ) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator Giving benefit of the doubt to the author of the article.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Economics ,  and Poland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article aims to highlight the individual's significant contributions.  However, it's crucial to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Any promotional language should be removed to maintain a neutral and objective tone.  I would appreciate your assistance with this.  Benmotia ( talk ) 20:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - I have withdrawn the nomination.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:33, 18 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: speedy keep
Mambas Noirs FC: ltbdl ( talk ) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa .  ltbdl ( talk ) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mambas Noirs have played at least three seasons in the Beninese top division from 2005-2011 and then again in 2017 before suffering a double relegation and disappearing, so it's frustrating this article wasn't sourced when it was created back in 2010 considering it's not the easiest to source these articles.  Most importantly this search shows they were significantly covered when they were in the league in 2017 and this talks about a budding rivalry with Requins from 2010.   I can't access [36] as it's about a player but may be of use.  This doesn't look like GNG but at least tells us who their trainer was during their 2017 top flight season.  I'm also finding sources frustratingly hard to search for because a site search of 24haubenin is difficult and brings up results that searching the site thru a web indexer does not, for instance this and this is not SIGCOV but demonstrate how they and several other clubs were kicked out after the season was abandoned in 2010.  It's going to be a slog to source but I'm absolutely convinced a sourced stub is possible here.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an aside, very very few of these sources came up using traditional search engines.  So if you Google and just see database entries from sport score websites, you haven't gone far enough...  SportingFlyer T · C 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've turned it into a neat little referenced stub.  Can add more if needed.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] oh, that's much better! i withdraw this nomination.  ltbdl ( talk ) 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also turns out they played in the CAF Champions League in 2005 under the name Donjo!  So this is an absolute keep in my book.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Top division club, clearly notable.  Number 5 7 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep being a top level club that qualified for international competition and improved sourcing by SportingFlyer has improved article to meet notability guidelines.  Demt1298 ( talk ) 18:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG, and looks better after expansion. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:50, 25 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: speedy keep
Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors: I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a muddle.  When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation ?  Relevant diffs would be helpful.  The latest substantive addition (

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Yuantang (language game): Remsense 聊 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The Chinese Wikipedia article lists four seemingly academic sources, which suggests notability.  _dk ( talk ) 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator In that case, I'll flesh out the article with them real quick.  I should've checked, thank you!  Remsense 聊 01:26, 17 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: speedy keep
Marcellus (prefect of Judea): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , History , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor.  See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus .  Undoubtedly notable, treated in hundreds of sources and books.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Improper nomination.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Obviously notable as a Roman governor of Judaea, even though little is known of him.   If the article needs more sources, find and add them—presumably there are multiple modern sources that mention him, even if they lack much detail.   AfD is not cleanup!  P Aculeius ( talk ) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs , this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 14:06, 19 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: speedy keep
History of linguistic prescription in English: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving @ Folly Mox : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 10:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome, Chidgk1 , and thanks for withdrawing the nomination.  Improvement is always a better outcome than deletion.  Many articles like this are pretty easily sourceable by importing references from adjacent articles.  I got the first seven citations in only an hour, but if I had just copypasted them it could have gone even quicklier.  Then I got sleepy and stuck on a particular sentence I probably should have just rephrased.  There might be some OR in the article, but for that it's usually best to find a source that supports a weaker variant of the claim in question and change the prose accordingly.  I think the WP:BEFORE for this nom was not really thorough.  Do you have Wikipedia Library access?  They have really great access to a lot of major academic publishers.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 11:10, 14 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: speedy keep
Thin Ice (2020 TV series): PROD concern was: Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG .  Tagged for notability since 2021 — User:Donaldd23 17:13, 23 October 2023‎ DePRODded by Necrothesp ( talk · contribs ) at 15:27, 24 October 2023 with no explanation except, take to AfD . ‎ – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , France , Iceland ,  and Sweden .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes W:GNG with coverage such as these [40] [41] [42] Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has also got plenty of english sources, such as [43] [44] .  I'v addied them all to the article.  @ LaundryPizza03 , would you consider withdrawing the nomination?  Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:SK#3 , we would have to wait until a WP:SNOW closure is possible.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem.  On a sidenote, there is also coverage in the Swedish media such as [45] [46] .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep .  When I created it it looked like it would be more than a single season and a good example of something not anglocentric.  I'm not greatly bothered about it other than as an inclusionist.  -- AlisonW ( talk ) 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable after references added by @ Alvaldi who has performed a real WP:HEYMAN . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Its improvement illustrates perfectly the weakness of the prodding system.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per improvements made after nom.  per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:07, 26 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: speedy keep
Labiobarbus cyanopareja: Even Fishbase has no photos.  Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Philippines .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Every species is considered notable.  The absence of a photo doesn't mean the article should be deleted.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:16, 20 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: speedy keep
Harberger Tax: Not linked to by any other article; lacks importance as a concept.  Zim Zala Bim talk 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a proposal made by multiple economists, including in a book that is most likely notable ( Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society ).  I'd support a merge, but there isn't just one good merge target given these factors.  Notability does not depend on popularity.  Also worth noting that this recently survived AfD, with editors able to find significant coverage of the subject.  I don't see how the circumstances have changed since.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 18:18, 27 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: speedy keep