hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Sthenias javanicus: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 23:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One hit in Gbooks [1] , looks trivial.  I can't find anything in jstor or Gscholar.  I wonder if it's known under a different name.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More hits on Sthenias (Sthenias) javanicus, but I still can't find much.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per longstanding consensus ( WP:NSPECIES ), individual species are invariably notable.  Jfire ( talk ) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Accepted species, no confusion about holotype or synonyms ; original description already linked, present in the relevant databases [2] [3] .  Please have a look at the responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clivina jodasi and desist from any more of these nominations.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "Article has very little information" is not a reason to delete one.  The species is accepted with no confusion about holotype or synonyms, as mentioned above by Elmidae .  Mooonswimmer 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 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
Poybo Media: There's a source assessment on the talk page for the sources in the article; I'll put that here too for convenience.  Most of the sources cover the founder of this company rather than providing any in-depth coverage of the company itself; see also WP:ORGDEPTH .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:20, 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
Adidas Predator: 2) Fails WP:GNG as the vast majority of the sources used are not reliable.  A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS .  TarnishedPath talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - This was a mistake for me to nominate this.  When I was reviewing the list of sources I saw a lot of sources that I had seen in similar articles that I'd recently nominated for AfD and I knew they were bad, however my eyes missed the Complex one so I didn't check it and I should have.  TarnishedPath talk 03:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Sports ,  and Football .  TarnishedPath talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable, see e.g. coverage in Complex .  Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage online and exactly the same as per my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas Copa Mundial .  Govvy ( talk ) 11:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Govvy, is my explanation above enough for you?  Giant Snowman 17:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable due to coverage in Complex , The Athletic , and other reliable sources .  Tails Wx 12:12, 30 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
Vampirates: Blood Captain: Previously WP:BLAR twice, but was reverted.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  01:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above: Vampirates: Tide of Terror ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vampirates: Black Heart ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vampirates: Empire of Night ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Some meet NBOOK readily, eg: Tide of Terror [28] [29] [30] [31] , Blood Captain [32] [33] [34] .  These seem likely to as well: Empire of the Night [35] , Black Heart [36] .  AfD isn't always a great place for deciding how ot handle coverage of closely related articles of varying notability so it might be best to bring this to Talk:Vampirates or Talk:Vampirates: Demons of the Ocean to discuss how to handle the series in full.  — siro χ o 03:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , as per sources provided by Siroxo.  Didn't think to check ProQuest when doing WP:BEFORE , will do so next time.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Pankaj Sanghvi: ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 22 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: speedy keep
Charley Pollard: Currently does not meet it as it stands.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:15, 30 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: speedy keep
Russell Bentley: Barely covered in any media.  He only recently resurfaced due to being missing.  Definitely does not deserve his own article.  BeŻet ( talk ) 10:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia ,  and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , given more than 3 independent sources, all national newspapers or news sources, over a period of time (2015 to 2022), having him as the primary (or one of the primary) subjects of the articles; reaches WP:NBASIC .  Klbrain ( talk ) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Definitely notable, I found his name in Russian press and started googling.  Lots of coverage.  Tiphareth ( talk ) 16:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above.  Providing one more additional link btw.  [31] PoisonHK Sapiens dominabitur astris 10:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , people have short memories but Bentley received a lot of coverage in 2014 when he first went to fight with the separatists.  He was interviewed at the time by Vice and Newsweek.  He has not only just become of interest due to reports of his alleged disappearance.  -- Katan gais (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , He is now reported mudered.  I looked up this article when I saw a report of his death PeterNimmo ( talk ) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , He has been a subject of interest many times since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in 2014.  2600:1007:B037:10F5:1556:E6F3:9C9A:6781 ( talk ) 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Klbrain and Katangais.  Multiple, independent reliable sources over a period of time should demonstrate notability.  ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 20:35, 15 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: speedy keep
Beyond Desire: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found a suitable and reliable review from TV Guide .   Needs one more suitable and reliable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added a few sources to the page, including the TV Guide review mentioned above.  See for yourself. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is also a review in the Montgomery Advertiser .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw nomination per consensus and per newly added sources.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 17 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: speedy keep
Embrace the Gutter: HCS.net ( archived ) appears to be a blog and I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny in terms of reliability.  The sales claim might be worth investigating but could've easily been made up for all I know.  Maybe other editors will consider AllMusic and Hit Parader to be the bare minimum for a pass, but I think we ought to be just a tad more strict than that.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Florida .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there's another review in Rock Hard behind a paywall [92] .  The band is reasonably well known, so I would expect that this album was reviewed in Kerrang! and Metal Hammer in the UK, at least... but of course, I can't vote to keep just because there are "probably" other reviews, until we find them.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 15:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rock Hard certainly helps its case.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Metal.de is another one from Germany [93] , Ox-Fanzine is a third , and here is a fourth.  Keep .  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, that'll do it for sure.  Thanks folks!  Withdrawn .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:20, 28 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: speedy keep
Sebastian Elmaloglou: Fails WP:NACTOR , no multiple significant roles.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:39, 13 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
Guillermo J. Tearney: WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Massachusetts .  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  No evidence of significant independent coverage with 7 papers with over 1000 cites?  Pull the other one.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] @ Xxanthippe what does "pull the other one" mean?  S0091 ( talk ) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Try Google.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .  Bad nomination; the claim that there was no evidence of coverage in the nomination statement tells more about the nominator's lack of WP:BEFORE than about the subject, because coverage was not hard to find.  Beyond the pass of WP:PROF#C1 already discussed above, he passes #C3 (Fellow of National Academy of Inventors ) and #C5 (named professorship at Harvard).  None of these notability criteria depend on independence of coverage.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn Apparently I got this one wrong.  Apologies.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  12:44, 17 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: speedy keep
Army Wives: Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television ,  and United States of America .  Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (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/2024 April 30 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - This ran for seven seasons, and had 117 episodes.  The article has 61 in-line sources.  The series aired in numerous countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, Sweden, France, and other countries.   This show was nominated for numerous awards, and won several of those.   It has a separate List of Army Wives episodes .  — Maile ( talk ) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per the above comment.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:38, 30 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: speedy keep
Arka Sokaklar: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : No apparent WP:BEFORE and no clear rationale for the supposed lack of notability.  See [19] and [20] .  Arka Sokaklar is quite a well-known Turkish series that has been broadcast for a very long time.  As can be seen through the links I provided, just a quick search of the name returns a plethora of publications, studies, and whatnot on the series.  Aintabli ( talk ) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aintabli .  While the state of the sourcing in the article is bad, there are plenty of reliable sources for the show.  I would also look at the Turkish Wikipedia article on the show which is much better sourced.  GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no way it's not notable, it's one of the longest-running shows in Turkey.  Tehonk ( talk ) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn anyone can close.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 02:45, 27 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
Father of Turks: TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 05:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 05:20, 25 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
Liane, Jungle Goddess: No showing of notability or SIGCOV.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film ,  and Germany .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: At this point, I feel sufficient sources have been found to prove up at least GNG and likely NFILM.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it doesn't have to be unsourced.  The German Wikipedia article has sources.  It was a very successful film that also raised some controversies, pushing frontiers in what was then acceptable (near-naked woman!).  Given that it was released in 1956, we have to have some understanding that everything written about it at the time, and for decades after its production, will be on paper.  Its current availability and internet presence demonstrates that it has lasting cultural value.  Elemimele ( talk ) 06:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in some form.  It's very likely both the film and book are notable [25] .  Other helpful bits of SIGCOV that should help get us to GNG for the film itself: [26] [27] [28] [29] — siro χ o 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added some sources to the page.  Clearly notable, as a basic internet search can show.  Keep . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I was about to withdraw the nomination, but "withdrew the withdraw" after taking a closer look at some of the sources offered by Siroxo, most of which appear to be passing/trivial mentions, where this film is offered as one item in a list of examples.  I'm not yet convinced there's enough here to make this film stand on its own as independently notable.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm now convinced and will withdraw.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I that case there is no need for me to also vote keep.  The German article  has three references and lists three books as sources.  Did you do WP:BEFORE ?  -- Bensin ( talk ) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did, but this film isn't that well known in the English-speaking world and so there was a dearth of sources.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 00:03, 16 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: speedy keep
Fascism (book): My search was confused by the fact that the author has written eleven books, all of which have the word Fascism in the title , and also a journal called Fascism.  This one is just titled Fascism, which makes searching for sources a nightmare, but I did try.  If there is not another review, redirect to author Roger Griffin .  If there is another substantial one I can withdraw.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PARAKANYAA : As you mentioned, finding reviews for this books was extremely annoying, and it doesn't help that there was another author with first name Roger writing about facism at the time, but I did manage to find one other review from the London Review of Books .  I would've preferred more coverage on the book itself, but that's all I could find.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ARandomName123 Nice.  There's probably more in the sea of dozens of similarly named books, but two decently lengthy ones is enough for NBOOK.  I can withdraw this then.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG , was unbale to find enough reviews on google.com and bing.com ( HeritageGuardian ( talk ) 21:50, 12 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
Balmiki Prasad Singh: Also it seems that author had close connection with the subject as the image added in the infobox also shows the subject himself as author. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as the governor of an Indian state.  Article definitely needs some work though.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Bihar ,  and Sikkim .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Clearly passes NPOL.  It is a clear mistake to send it to AfD.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  20:36, 23 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: speedy keep