hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Shannon Stephens : CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as does have an AllMusic staff written bio here and two staff written album reviews there.  Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:23, 17 August 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!  01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Here's a second source, 2009 NYT, an album review that includes SIGCOV of the artist including biographical details.  [51] — siro χ o 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep with the new sources given.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic : As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:43, 6 April 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!  06:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the introduction is clearly not a dictionary.  the list defines some words but is mostly serving the functions of a list.  should be fine enough as is to keep that too User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not a dictionary entry.  I don't know what gave the nom the idea that articles about linguistics and etymology are somehow not encyclopedic, prompting them to launch their current "Ehrmagerd, werds!" deletion campaign.  Owen× ☎ 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Does not read like a dictionary entry, it is a list – and a quality one at that.  ~ Dictionary ( talk ) 15:00, 14 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
Jullien Ramirez : Joeykai ( talk ) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Germany ,  and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure: I think that this would rest on whether the references to [ [16] ] suggest presumed notability...  I don't see any other inherent notability issued on this article.  AriTheHorse 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources already on article which show notability.  Giant Snowman 19:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources demonstrate notability.  Dwanyewest ( talk ) 10:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Young player with ongoing career with many sources.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:42, 23 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
Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing : No WP:LASTING — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Education ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan.  I think it should be kept.  Wikibear47 ( talk ) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA.  While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD.  It complicates closure and relisting.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [7] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan.  The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help.  This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands).  Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source.  I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns.  Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 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
Annual International Exhibition : The citation tag is correct though, as they are either not present, primary sources, or unverifiable.  I can’t find better sources ( WP:V ), and I’m not sure the topic is actually notable per WP:EVENT ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United Kingdom .  ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added a couple of sources including this , and while some change is necessary, the topic seems notable to me.   I can see a case for the article's name being changed.  JohnmgKing ( talk ) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Let's try another relist to see if we can come to a consensus Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not the best put together article in the world but I'm convinced (particularly by the excellent article at Purdue's Branch ) that it's not only a thing but that the presumption of notability exists.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:40, 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
When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics : Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 21:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Politics ,  and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:NBOOK as the book has been subject of multiple reviews from many reliable sources.  Centre for the Study of Developing Societies , The Wire , The Hindu , Pacific Affairs , Hindustan Times and Foreign Affairs .  In this list of reviews, there are some notable book reviewers like Ronojoy Sen and Andrew J. Nathan .  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  05:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfies WP:NBOOK per sources identified by

Discussion outcome: keep
Corey Jackson : Has not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources , so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Sportspeople , Colorado , Nevada , Ohio , South Carolina ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article in its current state leaves much to be desired, but I have a hard time believing that a Defensive MVP of the NFL Europe league didn't receive enough SIGCOV to be considered notable.  I have a feeling someone will dig up enough to demonstrate notability, though I myself don't have time to do so at the moment.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG [27] [28] [29] [30] I'm sure there's more but I don't feel like looking right now.  I don't think a modern NFL player who actually played has ever been deleted.  They usually have enough coverage.  Also, I cleaned up the article.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 14:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG per above sources.  ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 17:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly notable per the sources presented above by WikiOriginal-9.  Just about anyone who's played in the NFL in modern times (excepting the 1987 replacement players) will be notable.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.   Playing in "only" one NFL game doesn't negate that.  Rlendog ( talk ) 19:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject easily meets the WP:GNG , although it should be noted that there are no longer any participation criteria for American football players.  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG with the above sources and others in the article (I've cleaned it up considerably).  Modern day players who reach the NFL tend to have had a notable college career, which is the case for Jackson who was notable for both football and basketball in college.  For these players, Newspapers.com is a much better place to find sources rather than Google.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:46, 20 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
Su Quanzhong : See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Feng as this is nearly the same except for being about a different minor character in Fengshen Yanyi , including being written by the same blocked sock.  UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and China .  UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable and is only a minor character.  747pilot ( talk ) 01:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 747pilot : See source below.  Thanks 1.47.16.104 ( talk ) 04:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Fengshen Yanyi is not a random work of fiction; it is one of the most significant works of Chinese literature, and it's perfectly reasonable that characters in it have pages of their own.  He is appointed as the deity of Beidou Xinggong (Big Dipper, 北斗星宫), which is a star or a large asterism that really exists in real life see [10] .  Don't compare with Zhang Feng.  He is a minor character and was not appointed as a deity by Jiang Ziya in the end.  Just as all the Journey to the West characters are notable in their own right, the Fengshen Yanyi characters can also be notable.  The sources could be improved, and here are two suggestions for news articles in Chinese: [11] [12] , as well as The Gods List (封神榜) or source that describes Su Quanzhong as "a deity."  Liberty Times newspaper source states that Su Quanzhong is "a real god of Big Dipper".  His father, Su Hu, is also worshiped as a deity widely in Taiwan as part of Chinese folk religion.  You can see the Draft:Su Hu page that I recently created in draft.  He is enshrined in some temples of his father.  Fictional Marvel or DC characters are not worshiped as deities in the real world.  The worship of these fictional characters from Fengshen Yanyi serves as a testament to the deep connection between literature, mythology, and the rich tapestry of Chinese folk religion.  Moreover, his life and prominent battles were widely portrayed in Chinese opera and other forms of art; see Shanxi Local Opera Compilation - Volume 6 - Page 28 and Hunan Opera Traditional Scripts: Hunan Opera - Page 63 .  He has an entry in the Dictionary of Chinese Mythological Characters .  While other stuff exists, Chinese works are as deserving of complete coverage as Western ones, and there shouldn't be a separate prominence threshold imposed on them beyond detailed coverage in Chinese reliable sources.  1.47.16.104 ( talk ) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge with Fengshen Yanyi .  Doesn't hold up on it's own as it is right now.  The IP editor above says a lot about Fengshen Yanyi but fails to provide any sources that would support this being an article on it's own.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Keep Article sources have greatly improved

Discussion outcome: keep
An Ordinary Case : Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Will premiere at Cannes in a week or so.  https://www.festival-cannes.com/f/le-fil/ ; https://variety.com/2024/film/global/cannes-film-festival-2024-lineup-1235966528/ Main actor/director is extremely notable so that there's no doubt that the article will exist.  (French title: Le Fil)  Filming has received coverage in French media.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Several reliable sources covered the film in details, eg.  Variety [21] , Screen Daily [22] , Monaco-Matin [23] , and the film already has a set premiere date (and it is in about a week time from now so production should have completed), doesn't fulfill WP:NFF . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 19:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's silly to nominate a film as too soon eight days before the premiere.  It would be deleted on the 20th and then re-created on the 21st.  This is a waste of time.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Waste of time , already passes GNG, but if reviews are what you're looking for, just wait a few days, as feature films screened in major festivals like Cannes are obviously going to receive plenty of reviews.  -- C avarrone 03:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the rationales stated by every user above (coverage exists, not too soon, impractical nomination etc).  In general, I would maintain that simply being selected for the Cannes Film Festival should merit a standalone article.  I immediately created articles for the main competition for this very reason.  A month out is not too soon.  Auteuil's film is a mere days out.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 17:10, 18 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
Usiris (Persian) : The subject does not seem notable; commanding an army and getting defeated is not in itself enough to confer notability and the subject fails WP:GNG .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe is not uncommon for historical subjects of certain periods to be mentioned in only one secondary source.  E.g check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menostanes , he is also present in one classical source and also known for being defeated by Megabyzus Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez ( talk ) 23:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez

Discussion outcome: keep
Emmyblaq : Does not meet WP:IS .  Nswix ( talk ) 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria .  Nswix ( talk ) 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Extensively sourced to multiple major Nigerian papers of record , with absolutely no evidence presented that the sources are paid journalism.  Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see no problem with the sources present.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It’s a standard article Amaekuma ( talk ) 14:06, 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: keep
Anyone lived in a pretty how town : ltb d l ( talk ) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a fairly well-known poem by a definitely notable author...  AnonMoos ( talk ) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the spirit of WP:NBOOK criteria 4 and 5.  Wikipedia should have an article on every poem by e.  e.  cummings , for heaven's sake.  Potential sources found via the arduous process of clicking the "Books" link above: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per XOR'easter.  A full entry in the Encyclopedia of American Poetry: The Twentieth Century by itself establishes notability, and contains references to further reading, including two journal articles solely devoted to the poem.  Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 17 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
Club X : Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , no SIGCOV found in a search as well.  Donald D23 talk to me 00:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in the last discussion by @ Michig : such as [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources 3 and 4 mention Club X more in passing.  The Guardian doesn't focus solely on Club X but just mentions it as another cancelled show along with others, it's a maybe when it comes to notability.  Only Source 1 could maybe establish notability, but that website is a dedicated dictionary of every British TV show that ever existed and doesn't establish Club X. Are there other sources which can establish the notability of the TV show?  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG based on sources found.  It's from 1989 so not as much will be available online, but I'm sure there was more back then.  The Daily Telegraph , Apr 22, 1989.  , The Guardian , Apr 27, 1989.  , The Observer , Apr 23, 1989.  3 other sources listed in previous discussion if anyone has access to British newspaper archive, not sure if any are the same as these but those 3 should of been enough for GNG, they just need to make their way into article.  WikiVirus C (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sources found on Newspapers.com demonstrate significant coverage exists.  The Telegraph article is a significant find.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reliable sources available per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:26, 24 April 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