hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Brenda Jean Patrick: She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts.  Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district.  I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR.  Joyous!  Noise!  17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Joyous!  Noise!  17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is coverage of her municipal appointment as to North Texas' Water District Board of Directors and a range of coverage of her consultation in education and other sectors (Wikipedia Library required): [7] [8] [9] .  I've gone ahead and removed some unsourced information from the article and rephrased elements to be more straightforwardly neutral.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:01, 12 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: no consensus
WZTS-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:42, 11 February 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!  21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject.  If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information.  So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham ( talk ) 20:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:40, 26 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: no consensus
Richards Heuer: Of the 13 sources: - 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing) - 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself - 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website - The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it.  Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG .  Chetsford ( talk ) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Philosophy , Military , Psychology , California ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am satisfied from [2] that the subject is notable.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : His top two books are highly cited , which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY —it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1 .  I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world!  Biogeographist ( talk ) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:42, 12 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: no consensus
Michael Novales: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches and 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed.  Add to that your bad faith aspersions.  A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 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!  02:37, 24 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: no consensus
WBON-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:54, 25 May 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!  01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep.  Seems the article has improved enough to justify keeping it in.  -- Danubeball ( talk ) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Desperately seeking participants.... .  (80s reference)  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lacking independent sourcing.  Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings.   As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station.   The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.  Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article.  I don't see that contributor making assertion here.  I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied.  BusterD ( talk ) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage.  The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit.  I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:16, 22 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: no consensus
Rachel Brooke: Coverage is local only, with no charted singles.  Typical coverage here: [33] , rest is social media coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO by the looks of it. - KH-1 ( talk ) 05:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Original author of the article here.  I would argue she meets the notability criteria defined in WP:MUSICBIO with widespread national attention, touring, releases, awards, etc.  However, I failed to include most of this information in the original article, which was just a stub.  I've already added a bunch more content and refs, I'll try to get this fully polished in time for the deletion deadline.  DallasFletcher ( talk ) 03:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply : If you share the best WP:THREE you are aware of here, it will enable people to make an informed ! vote sooner.  CT55555 ( talk ) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just finished another round of updates.  The page is still a bit thin and needs more work, but hopefully this new content is enough to convince that she meets WP:MUSICBIO .  DallasFletcher ( talk ) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : based on these new sources provided, she meets MUSICBIO.  Pershkoviski ( talk ) 02:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails to meet WP:MUSICBIOas well as she is a Non-notable local musician. -- Monhiroe ( talk ) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:26, 18 April 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!  03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources added since nomination (especially WGLT ) – and this good profile not yet used – suggest this passes WP:MUSICBIO .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 02:28, 2 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: no consensus
U with acute (Cyrillic): Sources are present but misinterpreted.  See also WP:Stress marks in Russian words and its talk page — Mike Novikoff 03:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn’t nominate this one with an earlier batch because it “was also used in the Karachay-Balkar language.”  According to Karachay-Balkar , “In some publications, especially during the Soviet period, the letter у́ or ў is used for the sound IPA: [w].”  — Michael Z .  03:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cross-checked the LOC romanization tables and they have a letter that appears to be u-comma for Karachay-Balkar (and for Karachay language ).  [1] As far as I can see, there is no precomposed Unicode letter for Cyrillic u-comma, but it can be entered using the combining comma above: у̓, У̓.   — Michael Z .  03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:03, 25 July 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!  03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to U with comma, since the letter as used in Karachay-Balkar seems to be such.  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, remove usage in Slavic languages as the two have different diacritics.  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More thoughts on moving the page?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Another deletion debate that got lost do to a botched relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Pppery * , I've seen this happen now over a dozen times now, I think it has to do with a glitch in XFDcloser, not with the relister.  We're all hitting the same "Relist" button, sometimes the relisting goes as expected, some times the discussion is relisted to the wrong daily log page, some times, the discussion isn't reposted at all.  I posted a note about it on the talk page for XFDcloser and it seems to be a known bug.  I'm not sure when it will be addressed though.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:42, 27 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: no consensus
Battle of Mangal: Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here- [11] Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military ,  and Pakistan .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are many sources on Google and some are in Hari Singh Nalwa .  -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the sources in the page Hari Singh Nalwa pertaining to this battle are reliable.  Could you list specific sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability rather than referring to nebulous sources on Google?  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources in Hari Singh Nalwa are Sharma's IJR source which cannot be used on Wikipedia, a source published by the Sikh Missionary College- [12] , an organization judging by its nomenclature and website meant only to propagate the Sikh religion; by no means is this a salient educational institution nor has it published any peer reviewed books or journals.  The last source is a Google snapshot- [13] , again from a organization that publishes hagiographies as opposed to rigorous scholarly works.  The book cannot even be found anywhere on the Internet apart from that Google snippet.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:02, 19 March 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!  22:03, 26 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: no consensus
Dais Records: Does not satisfy CORPDEPTH, ORGIND.  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , California ,  and New York .  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bands are a business organization whose line of business just happens to deal with business, too; that doesn't preclude from having alternate means of establishing notability, and there's no reason to ignore the expertise of those interested in music when deciding on the encyclopedic value of a record label.  This one has a substantial roster of noteworthy acts, which suggests importance in the sense used at WP:MUSIC , and in addition to the Fact article already cited in the page, they have received quite a bit of notice in press outlets - [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] .  Chubbles ( talk ) 16:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While we have WP:NBAND for bands record labels are not classified as such.  There has been several discussions and general consensus is that record labels are evaluated as WP:NCORP .  Graywalls ( talk ) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those conversations have been terribly robust, and there were several discussions at WP:MUSIC about adding explicit criteria for labels, as well.  In any case, there is no logical reason why bands should be exempted from WP:NCORP if labels aren't, as well; bands and musical ensembles are most certainly groups of more than one person formed together for a purpose, and indeed, for a commercial purpose in almost all cases.  Chubbles ( talk ) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A discussion on CORP vs MUSIC.  Seems to me the criteria rests on NCORP Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_38#RfC:_Notability_criteria_for_record_label Graywalls ( talk ) 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 30 June 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!  02:57, 7 July 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!  04:55, 14 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: no consensus
Shag River: Looking at pageviews , we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland) , demonstrating that it is primary by usage .  It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and New Zealand .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1 ⁄ 3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes.   This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion .  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.  However, AfD can be used to propose redirects ; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that would be Talk:Shag River .   You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done .  Uncle G ( talk ) 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: no consensus
Gideon Joubert: The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won.  However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either.  Broc ( talk ) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South Africa .  Broc ( talk ) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 5 February 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!  08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Afrikaans article at af:Gideon Joubert has several references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain I don't think "the page has references" is a valid statement for AfD.  Are they reliable independent sources?  Three of them are obituaries (one of them can be found online here , one is a link to the publisher's website, two are reviews of his book (which, as mentioned, might be notable).  The last reference is sufficiently non-descriptive to make it impossible to be found "Alberts, Louw. Insig, April 1998".  Broc ( talk ) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:58, 27 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: no consensus