hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Stewart Shining: Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below: Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process.  Key examples include: Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken.
 "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible.
 "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable.
 Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.  Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability.  This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.  Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias.  These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content.  Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions.  For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.  Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified.  Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie ( talk • contribs ) 05:01, 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 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and InternetArchiveBot

Discussion outcome: keep
K-9 Mail: See related AFD Discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Email PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This may not be as competitive currently, but it holds great historical significance as one of the first apps to give users a choice beyond the default for email on Android.  I've added a couple sources from books in the early 2010s showing that this was an important application for email.  On a less grounded note, Mozilla has recently acquired this application with a goal of revitalizing it.  If the page isn't significant enough for historical reasons, I'd like to request that the deletion gets delayed for a bit (maybe a year?) to see if it regains a greater following.  I think this would be preferable to deleting it now only to re-create it in the future when it is even more notable.  Teeks99 ( talk ) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources in the article already, Linux Voice did a decent little review of it [5] in 2014.  Was included in The Rough Guide to the best Android apps [6] and many more small capsule reviews.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Changes since the nomination have added three additional refrences, there is definitely room for improvement but its also definitely notable.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 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: keep
Camping and Caravanning Club: Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Organizations , Travel and tourism ,  and United Kingdom .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  An extremely large and significant organisation in the UK.  Plenty of sources available.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, I have some edits to make to this page to improve the quality and tighten up the references.  Can I make these?  I really don't want the page to be deleted.  Thank you.  Adrobson ( talk ) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed you can.  Please do.  Particularly, please add information from WP:SIRS sources to demonstrate the topic's notability.  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is..  please do not add unsourced informaiton.  Please add references to assertions already in the article.  Please add new information only with references to support those assertions.  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait... your username used to be "The Camping and Caravanning Club"?  No, you should very much not be editing this article.  you should make edit requests on the talk page with {{ edit COI }} as you most certainly have an conflict of interest .  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with @ Necrothesp .  This is a large and historic organisation in the UK.  References in the article may be poor but AfD is not cleanup.    A quick google on The Guardian alone ( [45] ) indicates a plethora of references.  Resonant Dis tor tion 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable organisation with significant coverage GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:33, 22 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
Embassy of the United States, Tegucigalpa: Biruitorul Talk 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Honduras ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles.  LibStar ( talk ) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unsurprisingly meets the GNG .  The new embassy, which reminds me of a Jawa Sandcrawler , has gotten a lot of SIGCOV.  Newspapers: El Mundo , Proceso 1 , Proceso 2 , La Prensa , El Heraldo , EFE , Primicia Honduras , Tiempo , Criterio .  Architecture magazines: ArchDaily , deZeen , Architectural Digest , designboom .  Pilaz ( talk ) 20:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The sources listed by Pilaz should have put an end to this discussion in my opinion.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] change to keep on the basis of sources found which meet GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:42, 22 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
Honoring the Fathers of Bluegrass: Tribute to 1946 and 1947: Just tried to find sources on Google, and couldn't find any.  I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Grammy Award-winning and Billboard-charted album.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The AllMusic review and the Grammy win are plenty for notability.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Read WP:NALBUM ; this album has met at least two of the criteria, being a Grammy Award album and not just charting but charting at #1 in the U.S. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 02:44, 27 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
Hallypop (Philippine TV channel): Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Founded sources for the article: [18] [19] [20] .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ.  They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above in meeting NTW and GNG.  Cheers!  Fake scientist 8000 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment The three websites listed by ThisIsSeanJ seem to be routine coverage of the station's launch.  Therefore I don't think that they are sufficient to establish that WP:GNG is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We believe that the sources presented by SeanJ are still reliable enough.  You can never change our minds.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An additional source dated 2020 has been added to the article which alleviates the concerns of routine coverage.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw the source and it's also reliable enough.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Fallen (Transformers): Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Comics and animation ,  and Toys .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously satisfies GNG.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ citation needed ] Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment for the record I personally don't think two months is a particularly long time for something to have notability tags for, considering Wikipedia is a part-time hobby for editors (unless you guys are getting paid, in which case tell me how!).  At the risk of invoking Other Stuff Exists, just the comics section alone has multiple articles that have been tagged for a decade-plus (many potentially violating BLP) which need more urgent attention, which once again suggests the nominator is following some sort of personal agenda rather than a genuine desire to improve the wider project.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I have a personal agenda, a personal agenda to rid Wikipedia of fancruft.  Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which you're focusing almost entirely on a single toy franchise in a non-constructive manner, which several experienced Wikipedians have asked you to modify and your answer has been to resort to petty " [ citation needed ] " responses.  For someone aiming for "a Wikipedia with zero incidents of disruption" you're sure going out of your way to create as many as possible despite several recommendations that you work on constructive repair work before getting overly-involved in AfDs and the like.  Remember, you're supposed to have only have returned to editing a month ago...  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:08, 31 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
Tommy Parsons: Joeykai ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG because of WP:SIGCOV such as [ [41] ] (1/2), [ [42] ] (2/2), [ [43] ] [ [44] ], [ [45] ] and [ [46] ].  Was a WP:BEFORE check conducted?  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Subject seems to meet GNG through various examples of SIGCOV.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:18, 10 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
Tirukkural translations into Saurashtra: Already covered in Tirukkural translations .  No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord.  1 para is about the language Saurashtra in general.  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , India ,  and Gujarat .  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Additional citation added to establish notability.  The first para simply paints the background and can be removed if deemed unfit.  Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani .  Article now passes WP:GNG .  Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles.  Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations .  // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 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
Eddie Henderson: There are two Eddies on that page, but I have just discovered the existence of this one as well.
 However there is no evidence that the soccer player was an Edward - he may have been an Eddie from birth.  Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 13:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My feeling is to merge Ed/Eddie/Edward ... but then I wondered about Ned, and Ted: curiously, Ted Henderson of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice gets a listing at Ted but no redirect from Ted Henderson !  Pam D 08:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, he's got a redirect now, and the other 3 title characters have a dab page entry, a hatnote, and an extended hatnote.  Pam D 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and close this appears to be a merge proposal, not deletion.  It meets the requirements of a dab.  One of these doesn't seem to be an Edward, just full name Eddi, but also could be Edmund or other names.  Ted can then be short for several names - amalgamation can cause confusion.  Boleyn ( talk ) 11:42, 25 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
The Residence (TV series): - 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE ( talk ) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting that this was created on my behalf.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE ( talk ) 23:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (barely): Three sources from article show N, not all just these three: [6] , [7] , [8] .  Most of the other refs are promo, mentions in articles about other subjects, but these three put it past the GNG finish line.  // Timothy :: talk 21:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources are good and reliable.  I feel it passes GNG, although it could be a bit better.  KeineMelon ( talk ) 15:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft - I'm not seeing confirmation that filming started in those sources.  Did I miss it?   - WikiPete18 ( talk ) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Went through again, but i still dont see it.  I think there's good reports, but the spirit of the nomination seems to be that it should be a draft until the production actually starts and gets reported on.  - WikiPete18 ( talk ) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  23:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are reliable sources for this article.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But how many reliable sources say that production has actually started.  The point was that this could be cancelled at any point still with recent changes to the industry where things are cancelled even after production in some cases.  Grendel for example 2600:1012:B121:9BB2:19EB:42FD:EEFC:216A ( talk ) 19:57, 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
Nadine Rohr: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Switzerland .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both sources currently in article appear to be reliable.  One is international database which confirms her as 7x national champion, one a newspaper article about her which confirms her as national record-setter.  Pam D 07:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If you really weren't able to find sources, Shinadamina, you should ask someone for help.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This can safely be kept due to even more sources having been added.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
The Wayward Realms: I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released.  Primefac ( talk ) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games .  Primefac ( talk ) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NEXIST .  There are a lot more PCGamesN articles, GamesRadar+ and GameStar , just to name a few.  It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing.  Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:11, 17 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!  17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's clearly enough coverage to make it significant, not to mention the team is made up of industry veterans instead of newcomers.  But yes, the sources really should be cleaned up.  ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Lots of established gaming sites discuss it, and the team behind it has a proven track record.  Sure, the sources could be stronger, but let's focus on making the article better, not getting rid of it altogether.  Waqar 💬 17:08, 2 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