hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Mark Satterthwaite: While Satterthwaite may be known for his theorems, few alternative secondary sources exist about him.  Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles (for this topic articles include: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, Muller–Satterthwaite theorem, and Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem) or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.  I have failed to find sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject.  On 13 Feb 2018, I posted on the talk page calling for good faith efforts to determine notoriety, find additional sources, to then attempt to merge any independently-verifiable content into a broader article, however no such information appears to have been found and thus this article meets the criteria for deletion.  Thank you.  Aeroplanepics0112 ( talk ) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Economics , California , Illinois ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per criterion 5 of Notability (academics) guideline : "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."  Additionally, Google Scholar indicates Dr. Satterthwaite's publications have been cited 14,586 times .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easy passes of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5 . Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep per above, the citations for individual papers are very impressive as well, including a couple over 3000 by Google scholar's count. — siro χ o 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep . Beyond the above (and the multiple earlier named chairs listed by his faculty bio), he has a double pass of WP:PROF#C3 evident in the article at the time of nomination, through fellowship in the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (by far the better of the two AAAS's). It's not a long article. You should read it before nominating it for deletion, and understand how what you read relates to our academic notability standards. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets multiple NPROF criteria and in addition having his name in several notable theorems further reinforces notability. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:29, 30 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
Coins (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.  Coins (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of coins .  Coins (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of coins is (it says) about Tarot cards and has an alternative name of Suit of pentacles .  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep but do not merge .  These are two distinct topics.  Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern playing cards, they started producing their own packs over 200 years ago for cartomancy.  So Coins (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas Suit of coins is purely about cartomantic cards.  They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover.  The same is true of batons and wands, cups and goblets, etc.  We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do.  I agree the naming should be changed and would suggest renaming Suit of coins to Pentacles (suit) ; equally we expand the disambiguator by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit).  HTH.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:56, 14 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
No (band): While most of its former members seem to have achieved notability separately, this can't be said for the group itself.  Attempted redirect to one of its members, but this was reverted.  Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 14:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Directly satisfies WP:MUSIC #6 with respected music writer Dr. Marcus Breen noting of the band "Marie Hoy and Ollie Olsen are almost legends in their own lifetimes".  That Breen article itself is a full article about them in a mainstream major newspaper.  Combine that with coverage from Ian McFarlane and we already have decent coverage for a late 80s Australian band.  And that's without yet considering Dan's expansion.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above and new sources.  This is an example of the 1995 year-zero effect, where print-only coverage never made it to the Web.  e.g. , there will have been a ton of coverage in RAM and Juke.  But the recent additions help a lot.  There's also a Forced Exposure interview that I'll add at some point.  No were a significant and influential band, presaging a huge amount of '90s industrial metal - even as Olsen himself went techno - David Gerard ( talk ) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfies a number of the criteria under WP:BAND .  Is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the ban itself.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:26, 28 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
Alireza Ghasemi Farzad: I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the  article that contains the list of governors in Iran.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC) Comment Fixing malformed nomination.   I am neutral at this time.   -- Finngall talk 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge.  In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no proper rationale for deletion has been suggested, and in any case the subject passes GNG.  Mccapra ( talk ) 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Anchorage Digital: The Forbes Crypto appears to be a blog-type posting.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites ,  and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Forbes through me for a loop at first because of the URL extension ".sites," but it appears that even staff written pieces have that extension now.  This one was written by a senior reporter and senior editor and not part of any of their partner programs.  The CNN article is borderline as it has a ton of quotes from the founder.  However, there is this from Bloomberg written by two staff writers, San Francisco Examiner , and this from a staff writer in Fortune. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - surprised by CNMall41's evaluation of sources above in comparison to some of their other reviews, but nonetheless agree there seem to be enough references including but not exclusively those listed above to support for inclusion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:11, 11 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!  23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per CNMall41 and Indefensible.  Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources provided meet GNG.  Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 00:17, 18 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
Andrew Harman: Article relies on a single unreliable source.  UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found a ton of reviews proving notability and his works were published by a major UK press.  For his Firkin series of novels, there are reviews of the various books in Vector (in issues 174, 180, 181, 182, and 186), Interzone (in issues 75 and 89, both from the early 1990s) Locus (in issue 400 from May 1994) and Science Fiction Chronicle (in issue 187 December 1995-January 1996).  In addition, his other novels are also reviewed in these places.  For example, The Scrying Game was reviewed in Locus issue 422 from March 1996, in Science Fiction Chronicle issue 189 from May/June 1996 and in Vector issue 188.  He's also mentioned in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction by Don D'Ammassa and Fantasy of the 20th century: An Illustrated History by Randy Broecker along with having a small entry in Fantasy: The Definitive Illustrated Guide and a detailed two-page entry in the St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers .  Granted, some of these reviews are very cruel and cutting -- the one in Interzone 75 states "There is hardly a word in The Sorcerer's Appendix by Andrew Harman which fails to grate. Harman's recipe for humour is to invent a large number of very stupid characters, and show them behaving in very stupid ways, time after time. He then explains to the reader what has transpired, repeating much of it."  But the reviews and other citations still exist and provide enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I have updated the article with some of the citations mentioned above plus others I found, such as an entry for him in the Waterstone's Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SouthernNights.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 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
James Farris (baseball): Joeykai ( talk ) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's some routine coverage including of his college career, but I'm not convinced coverage of players who never made the majors isn't simply WP:ROUTINE .  SportingFlyer T · C 09:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clear pass of WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources, including The Hartford Courant ( "Farris Finds His Niche" ) and Arizona Daily Star ( "After 2012 title, Farris' long road at UA to end" and "CWS title at 10: James Farris delivered, and Wildcats took home fourth national crown" ), and The Arizona Republic (" UA pitcher James Farris drafted by Chicago Cubs" ).  Feature articles in major publications are the antithesis of  "routine" coverage.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62.  There is a lot of coverage about him: [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] .  Passes WP:GNG .  129.222.185.24 ( talk ) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Has enough sources and coverage.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 16:45, 21 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
World of Music (Zeebra album): Failss the general and album-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It likely passes WP:NALBUM .  It charted for six weeks and went as high as #11 nationally in Japan, per Oricon .  I may not have time to perform a search for significant coverage but WP:BEFORE should be done in Japanese here.  Dekimasu よ!  19:23, 10 October 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!  23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.  4meter4 ( talk ) 23:09, 22 October 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!  23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , charted, reference added.  J04n ( talk page ) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the WP:NALBUM #2 Lightburst ( talk ) 01:27, 31 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
New Hogtown Press: Under sourced and what is sourced seems to lack depth.  Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Organizations , Business , Companies ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable under the WP:GNG .  Not sure why this was tagged and even less so why this was nominated.  The nomination appears to be in conflict with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and something along the lines of wikipedia has no expiration date (sorry could not find it back so no link -- assistance appreciated!) gidonb ( talk ) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that the references are adequate.  Being burgularized by the RCMP Security Service is a sign of notability.  (sad face)  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:46, 26 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
Scion (organisation): GnocchiFan ( talk ) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Environment ,  and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a significant government research organisation in New Zealand.  Regularly gets coverage in New Zealand media, e.g. New Zealand Herald , Farmers Weekly , Radio New Zealand , and Stuff .  NZ Herald, Stuff and RNZ are the most prominent news sites in New Zealand; Farmers Weekly would probably be the most relevant special-interest news site. - gadfium 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While the article is poorly sourced in its current form, sources exist.  In addition to those noted by Gadfium , several entries ( [11] , [12] , [13] . [14] ) in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand detail the contribution of Scion (including under its former name of the Forest Research Institute) to forestry research in New Zealand.  Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much for your contributions to the article!  I would like to withdraw this request, clearly it was in error.  Thank you again!  GnocchiFan ( talk ) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries at all, I can totally see why it looked non-notable based on what the article looked like before.  :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 20:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable after Chocmilk03 's good work on the article.  Thanks, Chocmilk03!  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep yep, passes notability guidelines for organizations , per article expansion by Chocmilk03.  Seconding A. B., good work!  Tails Wx 02:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I suggest that a Crown Research Institute has inherent notability.  Schwede 66 14:37, 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
Gordon Seyfried: The closest I could find was two paragraphs in a book.  The overwhelming majority of book sources merely include his name, so no notability conferred from them.  Newspapers.com shows a ton of trivial routine sports coverage, which is fine for facts but not for notability, per NSPORTS.  SWinxy ( talk ) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Baseball .  SWinxy ( talk ) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm pretty deletionist but some of these nominations are getting ridiculous.  I'm seeing plenty of quality sources without even digging particularly hard.  I found a feature piece that I'm working on finding a way to mesh in the article on top of all the other sourcing out there.  Wizardman 02:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What feature were you able to find?  SWinxy ( talk ) 02:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last ref I just added is a half-page feature piece so that more that solves any potential issues.  Wizardman 02:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Strong Keep I have since added more than enough.  Wizardman 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wizardman's sources.  Spanneraol ( talk ) 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm pretty deletionist too.  Here's a paragraph from a book called Baseball in Long Beach , here's another from a different book with the same title, and some articles that provide more than just rotm game coverage.  [66] [67] [68] Altogether, it should cross the line for notability.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per GNG.  Rlendog ( talk ) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above.   Clear pass of GNG.  Frank Anchor 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Brief career?  True, but if you're a good enough pitcher to make a MLB start, the odds are pretty likely you've generated enough coverage to meet GNG.  Based on the sources from Wizardman and Muboshgu, that seems like the case here.  Nohomersryan ( talk ) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wizardman, passes GNG.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC , per Wizardman and Muboshgu.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Wizardman and WP:HEY .  — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 13:45, 17 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