hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bree Boyce: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and South Carolina .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Maliner ( talk ) 19:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Coverage exists, see this , and this , and this , and this , and this , and this , and this , and this .  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 23:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For analysis of sources presented to counter the nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - 1 - full article on her, 2 - another full article on her, 3 - another full article on her.  All 3 of these were already included in the article.  Looks like an easy keep in addition to Ejgreen77 's sources.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 05:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - significant independent media coverage.  Owen× ☎ 00:29, 22 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
Chellamma (TV series): — Karnataka talk 10:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is also Chellamma(TV series) that the redirect was removed by an editor and reverted as unsourced by myself.  Adakiko ( talk ) 10:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NTV Donald D23 talk to me 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : added more source. -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 14:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify - this article needs work but there are already sources on the page which show notability, though more sources and information is needed.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs additional sources.  Citadeol (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets notability with the existing sources Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:00, 12 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
9 Lazy 9: None of the minor sources I've seen are able to make this band even remotely notable.  Ominateu ( talk ) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Italy .  Ominateu ( talk ) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Allmusic biography and one two three non-trivial reviews, review by Exclaim!  Magazine , review by Riverfront Times , featured on non-trivial list in RS , this retrospective , this review on a site I'm not familiar with .  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think that it sounds like there are sources and coverage ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 23:10, 1 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
L'Instant Durable: UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and France .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No effective sources.  Fails WP:NCORP .  scope_creep Talk 18:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Abundant references in the corresponding French article, including several books.  The company is out of business, according to the French article, but this doesn't detract from notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Added another book source to article (Böhme), seems to pass NCORP.  — siro χ o 21:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting one more time due to the recently-found sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are sufficient sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability including the book references mentioned above.  HighKing ++ 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Kind of notable and has a lasting legacy. — Alalch E. 19:14, 25 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
Sadie Engelhardt: School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia.  WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Sport of athletics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree that the vast majority of American high school athletes do not merit coverage on Wikipedia, this specific athlete is not a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL one, and has substantial coverage by independent sources as shown by this Google Search , such as [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] .  As stated by Clearfrienda for the Cooper Lutkenhaus article, this amount of coverage satisfies WP:BASIC /GNG.  KnowledgeIsPower9281 ( talk ) 00:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another example of a significant high school athlete with Wikipedia Coverage is Quincy Wilson .  KnowledgeIsPower9281 ( talk ) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources given by KnowledgeIsPower9281 appear to contain significant coverage of the subject and meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:20, 20 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!  22:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Knowledge is Power.  GNG pass.  I have saved a lengthy feature piece on her at the foot of the article as "Further Reading".  If anyone wants to expand the piece, that's a good building block.  Carrite ( talk ) 04:33, 1 July 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
Moneo: PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I don't speak French but I think it would be worthwhile to examine the sources in article on fr.wiki because there are a lot there that may well suggest notability.  Generally speaking it would be a bit weird to me (if it was verified as true) if a banking system used on millions of French bank cards was not notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and France .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 16:33, 20 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
Rugby League Varsity Match: I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Rugby league ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of British and Irish varsity matches if no references can be found.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there are references available for much of this - I have added four so far.  Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep: looks like the referencing work done since nomination is enough to justify WP:GNG .  Storm machine ( talk ) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks - I removed the notability tag after adding the ninth reference as this now meets GNG.  Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now well-referenced, seems notable.  — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 19:59, 17 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
Loren Galler-Rabinowitz: As for the rest, I don’t know whether she meets the criteria for notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Beauty pageants , Medicine , Women and Massachusetts .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , very weak.  The sports hall of fame induction seems to be the best, the Buffalo newspaper article is fine.  Coming in fourth, then third at the national championships for ice dancing is barely at notability, but we have enough confirmation of these.  The medical career is routine, but just barely notable for the athletic portion.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This helps too [5] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree, passes BASIC.  Another source to add is Forward .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 21:51, 25 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
Roberto McCausland Dieppa: A lot of the sources are very questionable, being WP:SELFPUB or defunct.  Apart from a few musical profiles, I can't find much online either that meets WP:GNG .  TLA (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  Obviously this need cleanup but there is coverage to meet WP:BASIC .  [46] , [47] , [48] in El Heraldo (Colombia) .  200.107.96.222 ( talk ) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO .  Article is clearly a mess and excessively promotional, but not a reason to delete.  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per CurryTime.  Meets GNG amd coverage.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:28, 5 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
Poo Vaasam: In fact the producer's son said , "even I don’t remember much of that film".  Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1999#January — March , where it is listed. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1999#January_—_March .  The page has three sources where two are unreliable, one is a blog and the other cinesouth.com is not a registered domain.  Thehindu.com has no coverage, simply that R.K. Suresh's father, an ex-producer, made a Murali-starrer called Poo Vaasam.  Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which seems enough for a redirect, given its notable cast, don't you think?  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect is ok here too.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The film is praised in two sources that were published in 2021 and after giving notability to this 1999 film.  At first glance, I thought that mentioning this film was a typo for Pudhu Vasantham but realised that the sources mentioned another flop film Pasakiligal so it is not likely an error.  Cine Samugam and Cineulagam are not listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Not reliable and each of the sources has an author byline.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : Per WP:HEY .  Good work DareshMohan.  Kailash29792 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, nominator has withdrawn their nomination but there are still a variety of arguments over what should happen with this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing ! Vote to OK with Keep in view of sources added. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 25 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
Sovereign (Sansom novel): Fails the general and book-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are several reviews just plunking Sovereign Sansom into the Ebscosearch; a more thorough search would undoubtably find more.  According to the Shardlake series article it has been adapted for radio.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's been widely reviewed in both the U.K. and U.S., adapted for radio and stage, and the series is in production for television by Disney+.  I've added a sourced "Reception" section to the article.  Clearly notable.  Jfire ( talk ) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Its been updated per WP:HEYMANN and is more than visibly notable now.  scope_creep Talk 17:13, 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: keep
London Mens League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:39, 11 June 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 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree that this should be deleted as it is up to date with the current London Men’s League.  There are other pages that should be deleted first such as London and South East men’s league or merit leagues.  You are right that the Wikipedia pages for amateur Rugby League does need updating though.  Camogray ( talk ) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone AfDed all the merit leagues a while back and have all been redirect to Rugby League Conference .  I have also AfDed "London and South East men’s league" with this one.  While this is one of the very few that is upto date and in context with the wider system, it still needs references to comply with WP:GNG .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found.  Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Closest league on RFL website to the description is "London and South East Rugby League".  Perhaps a merge and redirect with London Men's League is an option as that page looks to cover to similar material.  The RFL page currently calls this "London and South East Rugby League".  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep merge with South East Men's League and rename London and South East Rugby League .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:42, 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: keep
Jan Smithwick: The best I could find is 1 line mentions in Australian search engine Trove.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Basketball ,  and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Weak keep - A successful 70s/80s athlete who was the captain and key player of the Australian national team and the 1985 WNBL championship team.  I did find a couple of sources on Newspapers.com that discussed her a bit, but nothing great.  I'm not to familiar with Australian newspapers archives to be fully convinced that there is nothing out there.  At worst, redirect the article to the Australia women's national basketball team .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article has some significant coverage already cited via The Age and Bendigo Advertiser .  We also have some coverage here and another passing mention and another title match report from The Age .  The Age seems to have several more match reports and passing mentions.  Taken together, should meet WP:BIO — siro χ o 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above.  It should be obvious that someone who captained a team from a major basketball country will be notable. -- User:Namiba 16:29, 28 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