hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Cato Street: I have notability concerns for this article; it must either be deleted or moved to a general article that lists this play.  I've looked on the news, Google, books, and scholars but couldn't find anything.  Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .   The stub cites reviews in The Guardian and The Sunday Times , as well as the Theatricalia listing.  Here and Here are more mentions.   The V&A Museum even has a feature about the play and its costumes .  This play was written well before the internet existed, so most of the sources would be print sources.  The play had a starry cast led by Vanessa Redgrave .   I disagree with the nominator.   It clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  If we want to fill out the stub to its full potential, someone will have to go to the library and get all the 1971 sources.  From what I can see, it has an interesting background: Olivier commissioned the play for the Old Vic, but funding was not sufficient, so it played at the Young Vic.   -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've got 1971 reviews from The Daily Telegraph and the Birmingham Post . Combined with the existing reviews, this demonstrates notability for the play. Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If kept then it should be moved to Cato Street (play) and Cato Street redirected to Cato Street Conspiracy , the clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would be fine.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - cites demonstrate notability; agree a disambiguate move would be helpful.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 16:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Courthouse in Września: I've started an AfD on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:24:Gmach sądu we Wrześni ).  My BEFORE does not suggest this effectively unreferenced building (our article links to a photo, pl links to the Couthouse page) is notable or has a status of a heritage monument (note: it is next to a prison building that has such a status, but that building does not yet have an article on pl or en, so no merger is possible).  While it is good to monitor the pl wiki discussion for possible keep arguments, I think we should discuss things here as well.  (A note for clarity: pl wiki article is about the building, not the court; our article is a substub that doesn't even make its focus clear, but I don't think local courts at that level are inherently notable, either.  FYI the building hosts a local district court (Poland) office).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While it's true that it doesn't appear to be heritage listed, I think that a significant public building like this dating from 1906 should be considered notable.  Rename to Września Courthouse though, which is much more intuitive English.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment . I see that Panek has said in the parallel discussion on Polish Wikipedia "Jest w wojewódzkiej ewidencji zabytków. Ma białą kartę , którą pewnie dałoby się to i owo uźródłowić" ("It is in the provincial register of monuments. It has a white card that could probably be used to renew certain things"). I don't know the significance of the provincial register of monuments, or a white card, however. BD2412 T 18:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . Being listed as a zabytek at the provincial (voivideship) scale ([:pl:Wojewódzka_ewidencja_zabytków]]) seems sufficient, particularly given that this document has several paragraphs of coverage describing the building, its architectural style, interior, etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Muksamse'lapli: Very little references found through Google search.  Seaweed ( talk ) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oregon .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV .  Pre-Internet persons covered in three reliable sources are probably notable.  I am extremely hesitant to delete articles about indigenous folks.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:31, 15 April 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 ) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I’m fine with deleting promotional articles about Indigenous people, but this article is well-cited and is notable.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I dug around and found enough online to satisfy myself this passes GNG.  Desertarun ( talk ) 19:30, 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
The Filmgoer's Companion: NN book.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Academic journals , Bibliographies , Film ,  and Products .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep All I can find are copies of the book for sale.  There are some old reviews of it [23] , [24] , [25] .  I suppose they're ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's a longrunning major reference work in its subject, and has gone through more than a dozen editions.  I'm finding it referred to as "essential", "the standard", etc. I think Oaktree's reviews could make a pretty decent stub for it.  We should probably move the article to Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies , leaving this original title as a redirect.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:49, 20 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!  19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reviews identified by Oaktree b for WP:NBOOK imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:36, 27 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
Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Most sources that focus on Sciabarra in this article were written by Sciabarra himself and are thus not WP:INDEPENDENT , the other good sources are all about his book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical .  This book of his is (maybe) notable, but he certainly isn't.  There is no need to merge this article into the book's page, considering that the book's article already talks about Sciabarra in its "background" section, I'm asking for a deletion.  SparklyNights 21:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Libertarianism ,  and United States of America .  SparklyNights 21:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  No time to search for reviews but his other two books each have >100 citations in GS, so may well have them, contributing to notability under WP:AUTHOR.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 12:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR .  One of many bad nominations of libertarian/randroid thought created recently by SparklyNights.  I'm sure they are acting in good faith in trying to clean up a crufty area of Wikipedia but they need to swing less wildly and pay more attention to WP:BEFORE : the notability of a topic does not depend on the bad state of our article on it.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein.  Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:10, 25 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
Victor Julien-Laferrière: Bremps ... 03:15, 14 June 2023 (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/2023 June 14 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  He won the first prize at the Queen Elisabeth Competition , a notable competition.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are a few decent sources such as an AllMusic staff written bio here and a piece from Radio France here , and this here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:41, 15 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!  03:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Atlantic306's three sources.  Those appear to pass WP:GNG .  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 06:17, 21 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
Necrobotics: Please finish AfD submission.  70.172.183.203 ( talk ) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from their request at WT:AFD .  I have no opinion of my own at this time.  -- Finngall talk 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The subject is clearly notable.  Google Scholar gives 27 papers and these are not trivial mentions.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of good papers in Gscholar [16] gives a decent introduction to the concept.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : significant coverage in academic literature, including secondary aggregators such as IEEE.  Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 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
CompuTrac: In my opinion, it doesn't merit a standalone article, but it deserves a mention in the Technical analysis article.  I wanted to merge it myself, but the WP:PROMERGE says that I should also copy talk page tags to the destination page.  I'm not sure if I should copy WikiProject Computing there, it is tagged as low importance, and the technical analysis is about finance, and the software section in the article is fairly small.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There exists significant coverage of the software in magazines and books ( example 1 , 2 , 3 ), enough to write a lengthy article if one were so interested.  Merging is also fine.  DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG .  As DigitalIceAge has pointed out, significant coverage exists in secondary sources, from which this article can be expanded.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:14, 1 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
Chohong Museum of Finance: toobigtokale ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  toobigtokale ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not able to find any sources, perhaps closed per nom.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand from the corresponding article in Korean, ko:한국금융사박물관 Machine translation: https://ko-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%88%EC%9C%B5%EC%82%AC%EB%B0%95%EB%AC%BC%EA%B4%80? _x_tr_sl=ko&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good find, thanks toobigtokale ( talk ) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename .  Seems to have sufficient notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  Good find.  The Korean wiki article is also unreferenced, but I found some coverage of the subject online including: https://sedaily.com/NewsView/268JMUKYQ3 and https://m.weekly.cnbnews.com/m/m_article.html? no=145524 .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and South Korea .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources do exist on this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources cited by Eastmain and Indefensible above appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:48, 17 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
2023 Pan American Racquetball Championships: Sources such as this [36] are primary.  Also per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE .  Contested prod.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Guatemala .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - I was surprised this article was nominated for deletion, especially as the event in question is one of the qualifying events for the 2023 Pan American Games .  The article details the latest edition of an annual international sporting event that's been happening for over three decades involving a sport recognized by the International Olympic Committee.  It seems the lack of references is the basis for the nomination, so I've added references to the event most of which are in Spanish, as the winners were from Spanish speaking countries and it's usually the winners that make the press.  Trb333 ( talk ) 03:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep for passing GNG.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 22:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Covered by multiple secondary sources; I don't understand how it's supposed to fail sigcov or GNG.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 12:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of newly added references would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:23, 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
Beer Albion Football Club: See previous examples of AfDs on clubs in the same situation here or here .  Number 5 7 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth mentioning that the article was created by the club's social media person.  Number 5 7 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I feel this might be enough for WP:BASIC , but my vote is a very weak keep.  I had a look at fchd , which often has historical games listed, like FA Cup, FA Vase, but it's only a recently started and only shows recent history.  But their recent record of winning trophies has a bit of coverage and that's why I have gone for a weak keep.  Govvy ( talk ) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Govvy : - FYI, FCHD only tracks leagues above a certain level of the league system, hence why it has no record of this club until they reached that sort of level.   They have definitely never played in a national cup competition -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep If you include local coverage, they appear to pass WP:GNG .  I would have accepted this at AfC.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - if the article is kept, it should be moved to Beer Albion F.C. in line with all other English football club articles -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or Beer Albion FC - we've started to lose the punctuation...  SportingFlyer T · C 13:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With the dots is the norm in Category:Football clubs in England ...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SF, probably enough coverage to justify it.  Agree with Chris that it needs moving.  Giant Snowman 12:05, 13 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
USAF Heritage Flight: No indication of notability.  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Lots of news coverage at https://www.google.com/search? tbm=nws&q=%22USAF+Heritage+Flight%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is any of it WP:SIGCOV .  "Lots" implies quantity, not quality.  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was as far as I could take it.  I feel like it merits a mention somewhere, however there's no mention of the flight in History of the United States Air Force and United_States_Air_Force only mentions the planes.  Absent a target, I guess it's weak delete.  Star Mississippi 02:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to pass WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I agree that it seems to meet WP:GNG .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 17:05, 23 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
Sevin Okyay: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Turkey .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep .  Not only has she received the honorary "Contribution to Cinema" award the nominator identified, she's the namesake of the Sevin Okyay Cinema Writing Achievement Award at the International Women Filmmakers Festival.  [1] There seem to be a lot of sources available in Turkish which I'm not able to evaluate, but I suspect they'll support notability per WP:GNG .  pburka ( talk ) 21:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : From checking, for me meets WP:GNG .  -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  Compulsive Researcher ( talk ) 16:37, 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