hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dokgo Rewind: And there is a lack of explanation for the movie.  Other film pages provide details such as production process, inserted music, etc., but those pages only describe plots and casts.  Hkm5420 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea .  Hkm5420 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Perhaps the text and references in the corresponding article in Korean at ko:독고 리와인드 could be used to improve this article.  The English article already seems to have a lot of references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:17, 12 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!  07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added a few things.  Seems notable enough.  I did not search for critical assessment in Korean.  If one can add some, that would help.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is now enough coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:53, 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
Walter Love: Fails WP:GNG .  nearlyevil 665 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  nearlyevil 665 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - on the simple basis that the subject was conferred a Member of the Order of the British Empire by HM the Queen.  Needs to remain while other sources are gathered and further notability established.  There's a video interview with him at [54] and another short one at [55] .  This would be a hasty deletion, IMO.  Ref (chew) (do) 08:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Obituaries are independent reliable sources.  Decent-sized articles in BBC News, Belfast Telegraph, The Irish News.  I don't see the problem.  Toughpigs ( talk ) Keep : Notable broadcaster in NI with a lengthy career, and independent sources to back that up.  As well as being an MBE he was also recognised by the Phonographic Performance Ireland .  This is Paul ( talk ) 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While an MBE is not usually sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO (that would need a CBE or higher), if awarded to a public figure like a broadcaster it usually is.  And the obits confirm his notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:36, 29 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
Eric Berger (media executive): MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is sourced to a number of bylined Variety articles, some of which are quite in depth.   Although these are no doubt prompted by press releases, Variety is a perennial reliable source .   Here are three articles to support notability: In-depth Variety article with bio details Variety execs to watch Adweek on launch ( non-paywall ) Oblivy ( talk ) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage dealing substantially with the subject.  I find THIS piece in Variety to be particularly compelling.  GNG pass.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:31, 19 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
Shoenice: FMSky ( talk ) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No, he's notable.  This [1] , this [2] and what's in the article.  GNG for being a, I don't know, youtube eater of stuff.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unless an actual argument for deletion is made.  Are the twelve sources in the article just not worthy of comment whatsoever?  jp × g 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found a handful of sources after five minutes' googling, only to find they are already cited in the article. .?  seems to me like GNG has been met.  Akakievich ( talk ) 18:26, 16 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
Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie: ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A bit like for part 2, also currently discussed, it could be a Keep (the film was apparently a commercial success : "the expensively produced but totally wasteful (of talents and film and running time) "Okay Ka, Fairy Ko," was the top grosser at P31 million." or here : "it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache"). - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm having trouble finding a bit of trouble with finding independent sources about the movie.  If we can find critical reviews from reviews and add them to the article, that should be sufficient.  The review you linked from Google Books seems to brief to count as substantive.  Enervation ( talk ) 08:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely a keep for me (shameless confession: I've watched this as a kid and the lines at the ticket queue was crazy and, however you look at this, it was a famous/notorious movie then and now).  But I understand why it would be really difficult to find (online) references for this.  This is a relatively old movie, and not many Philippine news companies (newspapers, TV or radio) have their archives searchable online, let alone contemporary issues at the time this movie came out.  --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! franchise. It's a 40th FAMAS awardee film but there's little material to work with online. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NFILM per above arguments.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I get that some people have nostalgia for this film but the article has no reliable sources to establish notability (IMDb doesn't count nor do passing mentions).  Is this Award considered notable?  I'm relisting this discussion for another week but if there aren't usable sources located over the next few days, this discussion will either close as Delete or as Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!  .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Liz : FAMAS Awards can be considered similar to the Academy Awards.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 21:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the box office success and the mini review ("it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache").  DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:02, 21 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
Trương Anh Ngọc: Sourcing found is only confirmation of existence.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Vietnam .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Football .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below.  Looks to be a notable TV figure in Vietnam.  Giant Snowman 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , @ Oaktree b : , literally when u search up Trương Anh Ngọc, you get a comprehensive Vietnamese Wikipedia page that cites many archived sources about him ...  Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football, article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does he play sports or is he a reporter?  I'm confused.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, a well written Wikipedia article is not indicative of notability.  Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , What I'm trying to say is that the sources cited in that article are...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , @ Oaktree b : , I found [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , among many many more Vietnamese sources...  Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 06:17, 28 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
Broze, Chitral: However, I could not find sources to prove it, and the sources originally added did not mention it.  The creator has been banned.  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] speedy delete without prejudice to recreation with sources It's bad enough that we have to dig through all the geostubs to verify that they aren't misrepresenting their database sources (because so many are bogus), but nothing is lost by deleting those that are unsourced.  It is colossal waste of time to have multiple people chasing around for sources, when it could be the one person making a sourced article, were that possible.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : It exists [23] , but that is hardly notable.  Unsourced stub.  I'd just TNT and move on.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Added 4 new references to the above unreferenced article including the one (Dawn newspaper) supplied by Oaktree b above.  The other 3 archived references are by the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.  In my view, it meets WP:NPLACE now...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 21:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Excellent work, Ngrewal1 , it does look like it meets NPLACE now.  Boleyn ( talk ) 07:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Verified as a legally, recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND gives Broze a presumption of notability.  We should be trying our best to expand the article rather than delete.  Rupples ( talk ) 05:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lacked electricity as of 2018 ; study of urbanisation at union council level , "the Kalasha's major Joshi festival was held in Broze, Chitral during the era when Chitral was under Kalasha dominion." .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 08:06, 30 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
List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian: As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:34, 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) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia and Netherlands .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 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!  06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki Poorly sourced too.  It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary.  The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it.  The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable topic.  Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin .  Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:48, 26 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
Hiroshima International University: Did a BEFORE (both in English and in Japanese), and all I could find were those websites that list schools' addresses and stuff.  Included websites do not satisfy SIGCOV either, I'm pretty sure.  AriTheHorse talk to me!  02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) I don't agree personally to be deleted because the university is good enough and has 4025 FTE students in 2023 with 0.5% of international students according to Times Higher Education [1] .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edogang1 ( talk • contribs ) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/japan-university/2023? page=8# Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Schools , Medicine ,  and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a notable school it'll just be hard to find sources for it.  Looking at Google Scholar the school does appear to be producing research.  [34] Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I've added some more sources.  Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I agree with @ Dr vulpes and @ Edogang1 that this is a notable school.  Quick search finds some quick hits that, while not enough to build an article on, leave me confident that a more robust search would result in plenty.  [35] [36] [37] [38] This article needs work, not deletion.  DCsansei ( talk ) 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  I would just like to see further review of sources mentioned in the discussion and added to the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , after reviewing the sources mentioned in this discussion and added to the article, it's clear that there's plenty of deep independent secondary coverage about this school.  Left guide ( talk ) 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Shut Up! Cartoons: ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Almost missed this one as I hadn't created it directly, but rather from a redirect, and for some reason it wasn't on my watchlist.  But that would make it 4 articles I created in some way that've been nominated for deletion in a 35-minute span.  Really odd.  Also mixed in that span was an IP edit going for (not an AFD nom, but rather) a straight up redirect on a 5th article I created.  Idk.  Either way, the sourcing present here is sufficient for GNG.  The Adweek source, Variety source, and LA Times source all help establish notability here.  The first and third ones there should be noted, need a subscription to access.  Will update the references in the article to convey that information.  Also found the following sources: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 that can be added to the article.  Soulbust ( talk ) 06:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:GNG .  Multiple articles with SIGCOV in Animation Magazine [46] [47] [48] [49] 147+ words of independent SIGCOV from AdWeek [50] , before moves into interview.  ComicsBeat SIGCOV before interview [51] — siro χ o 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:31, 28 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
Yalgaar: None of the other language versions have better sourcing.  Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources.  There may be sources in Hindi or other languages can’t access, in which case I’m happy to withdraw this.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added a few things (for example there are 2 pages in a book about Sanjay Dutt covering the production, negative but still).  Opposed to deletion.  Could be redirected to Feroz Khan (actor)#Filmography but I think it's best to have a standalone page. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 02:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] those are interesting tidbits of information but they are not in depth coverage of the subject.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - easily notable,  one of the highest-grossing films of that year.  Sources are available.  Needs expansion, not deletion.  It is challenging to find sources for Indian films of that period as no archives exist, but it's good as is.  Shahid • Talk 2 me 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source by The Indian Express has been added.  Shahid • Talk 2 me 10:29, 6 January 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!  23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .   The sources currently in the article are marginal and better ones are not easily available on line but what we have is much better than nothing and strongly suggests that more reviews in contemporary (1992) offline sources should exist.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - a high grossing film with notable actors Mr Vili talk 00:51, 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
1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships: Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports ,  and Pennsylvania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added two references from The New York Times.  This is not local coverage; the championships took place in Philadelphia.  The event had as much lasting significance as any other national championship in the United States, establishing who is best in a particular sport.  Simply googling "1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships" doesn't always work.  I used the internal New York Times search, searched for "Figure Skating Championships" and restricted the search to calendar year 1924.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Utterly reads like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination.  With the sources added it definitely passes GNG.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: From the sources provided by Eastmain, this subject clearly does pass WP:GNG .  Did the nom conduct a WP:BEFORE check?  User:Let'srun 13:32, 20 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