hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Tiffany Smith: Endrabcwizart ( talk ) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as actor has been involved in a significant number of roles and major television, film, video games productions over the past decade.  Why is article marked for deletion?  He-guy ( talk ) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep on the strength of a title role in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal , which yielded some coverage, and voicework for notable animated characters.  BD2412 T 01:55, 20 September 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!  23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  Admittedly not super-notable, but seems to be enough to stick. -- Milowent • has spoken 17:38, 22 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
Horace Greasley: I also think it fails on WP:V and WP:RS (I can find no reliable secondary sources confirming claims).  The article is based on a memoir by an individual who claimed that he was the soldier in a specific picture with Heinrich Himmler and that he escaped 200 times from a German POW camp.  These claims have been proven to be false in non-deprecated sources (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/historians-debunk-claims-of-200-escapes-in-memoir-of-pow-horace-greasley-bxr8fp7mn ).  Claims proven to be false can be notable because of wider ramifications; in this case there are no such wider ramifications and so the notability claim is based solely on the existence and legitimacy of the claims.  The claims have been shown to be false, and since the proof of falsity is not of itself notable to WP:GNG standards, the article fails WP:Notability (and the other policies referred to above) and should be deleted.  Emmentalist ( talk ) 14:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  CycloneYoris talk!  02:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'm not sure if this meets notability guidelines, but I do want to note, his claims being false and that being pointed out in WP:RS may be a sign of notability and that the article needs re-writing to meet guidelines like WP:V instead of deletion.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Full obituary in a major national newspaper.  We have always considered this is sufficient to meet notability requirements.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A notable fantasist.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added a reference to The Times article questioning the autobiography.  For "notable hoax", see WP:NHOAX ("for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years").  The book was a bestseller which suggests it was "believed by thousands".  68.189.242.116 ( talk ) 20:14, 17 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
Shaker Run: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable: this article in the NZ Herald calling the film a classic, and also this and this . — MY, OH, MY!  ( mushy yank ) — 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy Yank.  Also note that film critic Derek Malcolm said of the film in 1985 that: "Without question, though, it has the best stunts ever accomplished in a New Zealand picture, some of them quite breathtaking".  [1] Paora ( talk ) 23:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above sources.  I've added a couple of the above points to the article.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 02:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw per consensus.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:57, 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
T.O.D.A.S.: Television's Outrageously Delightful All-Star Show: All citations mention the show in passing, no indepth coverage.  Could find nothing better in a search.  Donald D23 talk to me 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Donald D23 talk to me 21:23, 6 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!  23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – A Philippine program from the late 1980s with few citations and no corresponding wiki article.  Clearly fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Until three years ago, "T.O.D.A.S."... was consistently the number one comedy show in the country for ten years. To date, no comedy show on television of its kind has ever surpassed its popularity making its success phenomenal." [1] Online sources are going to be thin because it's from the 1980s, but given that quote it's reasonable to presume that it's going to have quantities of RS coverage offline (likely in Tagalog as well as English).  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final Relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydronium Mach61 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV per Hydronium's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 06:14, 30 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: keep
Neha Rana: -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India ,  and Punjab .  Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: The subject is a notable actress, having played a notable role of an antagonist in her debut show and the main lead in a recent show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove ( talk • contribs ) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject is a notable actress and required citations were provided when the article was initially provided.  It had been noticed that someone is keeping on deleting the citations repeatedly.  Action must be taken against the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove ( talk • contribs ) 09:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't vote multiple times.  I have struck the second.  It has been explained many times why the sources are removed.  You need to become familiar with acceptable sourcing, which you are not.  Continuing to use them and call for sanctions against others is disruptive.  Star Mississippi 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am starting to understand acceptable sources and found that the sources that was removed belonged to that published by Times of India, which is considered one of the most reliable source.  Smsslove ( talk ) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No idea and therefore no opinion implied about the rest of this conversation but Note about the Times of India : Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". ).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as she has one lead role in a notable series, and that is well sourced, and various roles of much lesser significance but could pass WP:NACTOR though.  If judged insufficient, at the very least redirect to Junooniyatt#Main for now. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , pass in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide ( talk ) 09:52, 15 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
Kelsey Wingert: The incident with the foul ball is 6 of the references out of 15, and none of the others are substantial coverage about her.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 01:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colorado .  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Baseball , Georgia (U.S. state) , Louisiana ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 9 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!  01:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More coverage here when she left Atlanta [21] , [22] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - she was struck by a foul ball twice and received coverage in reliable sources after both incidents, as well as the coverage identified by Oaktreeb above.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 21:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : notable per Oaktree b and Hatman31 above.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:52, 1 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
The Eton Boys: Mainly passing mentions.  Fails GNG and WP:BAND .  X ( talk ) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Missouri .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep recorded for Victor Records .  Banner Records , and Perfect Records so albums weren't a thing in the 1930 so passes NMUSIC#5 in spirit.   Although there is nothing super in-depth in the article, many of the sources are more than passing mention, I believe GNG is met.   The article is neutral and gives far more than a dictionary definition, providing a synopsis of factual information that is useful to a reader looking for information on a musical group that headlined theatres in the 1930s, per WP:WHYN .  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per User:78.26 .  Made recordings with major labels.  Also there are the various films.  Thanks to User:PigeonChickenFish for expanding the entry.  FloridaArmy ( talk ) 20:39, 27 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
Apatia: Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web.  InDimensional ( talk ) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Poland .  InDimensional ( talk ) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't know how the nom looked for sources, but they managed to miss and ignore the source cited in the article, from Onet.pl , which meets SIGCOV and is reliable.  So that's one - and it calls this band "legendary".  Pl wiki lists two more sources, from a notable NGO, which calls one of its albums "cult" ( [16] ).  The band is mentioned in academic works, including in English, ex [17] "most of the best Polish punk bands such as Apatia...".  Other Polish sources: [18] (onet again), [19] ( Gazeta Wyborcza - Polish main newspaper of record), [20] ( Życie Warszawy ) I am not going to list more sources, but plenty exist even in English.  The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for terrible execution of WP:BEFORE , since finding sources does not even require speaking Polish (not that these days, with solid machine translation built into most browsers, this should be much of an excuse).  PS.  That said, the claim about them being mentioned in PWN I could not verify.  The article needs improvement, here and on pl wiki, but this is no reason to nuke it.  Sources I found here should be enough for anyone who cares to improve this article to get it to DYK level... maybe even I'll do it one day if I find the time.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Piotrus that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, preferably with at least pasting the mentioned sources into the article.  Geschichte ( talk ) 15:01, 29 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
Richard Kell (footballer): Geoff | Who, me?  20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To make this nom perfectly clear, I am conveying a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE .  I apologize for not making that clearer when I initiated the discussion.  Geoff | Who, me?  04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Completely disagree with your assessment, did you bother doing a WP:BEFORE ?  First result, he became a pilot.  [51] , Shocking nomination, there are a number of those on a google search which easily passes WP:GNG , with some interviews.  There are more sources for his footballing career.  Govvy ( talk ) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - judging by the PROD comment , this should be seen as a potential WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as Richard Kell himself has requested deletion.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Govvy; over 100 professional appearances with coverage out there, clearly notable.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Govvy, WP:BEFORE not thoroughly completed.  Notable footballer.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The request for removing this BLP came from an IP and it hasn't been verified.  Also the IP showed irregular editing closer to vandalism, removing some cites that could be restored etc.  So can it be even trusted?  So the nominator requesting a change of nomination?  Have you even been in contact with Richard Kell?  I don't see any evidence of that.  Govvy ( talk ) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See VRTS ticket # 2024032510011024 .  You can ask a VRTS member for confirmation at the VRT noticeboard .  Geoff | Who, me?  12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly has a career worthy of notability.  I agree with Govvy in full.  This is very obvious.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - obviously will be kept, with 100+ Football League appearances, but with the BLPREQUESTDELETE, I've deleted the birthdate - which doesn't seem necessary to me.  Nfitz ( talk ) 19:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:ATHLETE .  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 11:07, 30 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: keep
Vendry Mofu: Per this RfC , participation-based criteria for footballers are considered problematic and not usually sufficient for establishing notability.  Accordingly, WP:BASIC applies, and that standard is not met by this article subject.  A WP:BEFORE search found plenty of database entries, some passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable publications.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  I'm sure Indonesian sources exist, but I can't see any.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability.  Giant Snowman 18:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seriously... @ GiantSnowman : , I found [37] , [38] , [39] , , [40] , [41] , [42] , many many more Indonesian sources.  Clearly singificna tifgure in Indonesian football, 132+ appearances in the fully pro Indonesian top flight which receives hella media coverage, and 10+ appearances for national team.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG with significant coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Das osmnezz.  Govvy ( talk ) 15:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - The Republika and Tribun Lampung sources linked above are probably just enough to be significant coverage as they each summarize Mofu's career.  Jogurney ( talk ) 02:13, 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
Henry Sullivan (composer): The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America .  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Keep .  He wrote the script for the Broadway show Murray Anderson's Almanac on Broadway in 1929, which was with Noel Coward .  The song that he wrote I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) has its own Wikipedia page, which has been in existence since 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_May_Be_Wrong_(but_I_Think_You%27re_Wonderful) .  It was sung by Doris Day .  Starlighsky ( talk ) 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Starlightsky [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New Hampshire .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are references: Almanac... https://playbill.com/production/murray-andersons-almanac-erlangers-theatre-vault-0000004278 Starlighsky ( talk ) 03:19, 5 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!  22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - I easily found, and added, music sources from the IBDB Internet Broadway Database , as well as from the American Film Institute catalog.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NMUSIC ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for Wikipedia:Notability (music) -- 95.233.51.253 ( talk ) 18:05, 17 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: keep