hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Arthur Meaby: GraziePrego ( talk ) 02:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Full obituary in a major national newspaper.  We have always considered this to be sufficient for notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales) : Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is OBIT, with all the normal issues that go with using OBITs as sources. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Ping me if SIGCOV sources from WP:IS are added to the article. GNG requires multiple, IS, SIGCOV, sources. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is absolutely nothing wrong with using obits in national newspapers as sources. Not sure why you think there is. By capitalising, you seem to be suggesting that the page you want is WP:OBIT , which I'm sure isn't it given it has no relevance to this article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I expanded the article and added more sources.  Although I would like to see additional sources (especially on his work designing railroad carriages), I am convinced that Meaby is notable and worthy of coverage beyond the suggested link to the organization's article.  I also agree that a bi-line obituary in The Guardian pretty much proves notability.  Rublamb ( talk ) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, to consider recent expansion/addition of sources by Rublamb.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Based on the Obituary and expanded sources, this would suffice.  Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 02:30, 12 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
Gabbla: NP83 ( talk ) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Algeria ,  and France .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is one of a number of articles about films selected for the Festival of African Cinema whose information was captured in WP via CC BY-SA under a Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge initiative, but where the original online resources no longer exist.  For such initiatives, perhaps clearer source preservation is needed from outset?  AllyD ( talk ) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have added a couple of references showing critical reception of this film.  As well as these, the intro to a 2009 festival showing said that "With his second feature (...) Tariq Teguia proves himself to be the most important new director in Algeria" [19] .  More recently, the synopsis of a paywalled Journal of African Cinemas article (2016) claims "that Tariq Teguia's 2008 film "Inland" establishes a new frontier for North African cinema with the creation of a unique visual style that moves away from the thematic considerations of national cinema." [20] .  Overall, I think there is enough independent coverage for WP:NFILM .  AllyD ( talk ) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as two reliable sources reviews have been added to the article and together with the coverage mentioned above WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:13, 18 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
Bombay Cricket Club: Coverage is all local as per WP:AUD .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Middle East , India ,  and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 15:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The appropriate WP guideline for this article, a business, is WP:NORG , which includes the WP:AUD criterion: at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.  The sourcing in this article includes three substantive articles from The Oregonian , a newspaper with statewide circulation, as well as circulation in southern Washington state.  This article easily meets the notability thresholds for both GNG and NORG, with the higher criterion of AUD.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator).  I'm satisfied with amount of secondary coverage in a variety of reputable sources.  I would ask the nominator to have a wider discussion about AUD or specific sources (specifically The Oregonian ) instead of mass nominating restaurant entries at AfD.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD .  Please use caution when nominating articles for deletion as AfDs take up community resources.  Many more contributions are needed in the article space! gidonb ( talk ) 10:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : nomination ideas are invalid.  Closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and source regionality is not a requirement.  ɱ (talk) 21:18, 26 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
Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry: The only WP:SIGCOV source (#2) is from a Lubbock based outlet, which is WP:LOCAL .  Per WP:NOPAGE , this can be covered at the articles for the respective teams.  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , Arkansas ,  and Texas .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with sources such as It’s about time: Texas Tech-Arkansas rivalry a casualty of this era , Rivalry’s nostalgia palpable and Game Recognizes Game: The Saga of Texas vs Arkansas Through the Decades .  Please note that WP:LOCAL links to an essay (i.e. neither an official policy or guideline) called Wikipedia:Places of local interest .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 18:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck the last source, my bad.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per unsigned comments from User:Alvaldi .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a note that the last source is about the Arkansas-Texas football rivalry .  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources above.  BUT I have to stress that WP:LOCAL should be hesitantly used for rivalry articles because of independence.  These two teams are lucky to have sources outside the cities that they are based in.  However, other teams should have more outside the realm of their city feud.  If anything, it shows bias about a team that may not actually have a rivalry, but one city/area certainly thinks so.  I am not saying don't use them to support GNG, but don't use them as the only sources.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly  disagree.   As Alvaldi notes, WP:LOCAL is neither an official policy or guideline ...  and  on its face WP:LOCAL purports to cover places of local interest.  See also WP:ITSLOCAL ("it's only notable locally", e.g. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville", is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions).  The one exception (not applicable here) is the WP:AUD limitation in WP:NCORP .  A proposal in 2019 to extend WP:AUD more broadly to Wikipedia articles was rejected by the community.   See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Local sources, again .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The sources identified by Alvaldi (excluding the last one [now struck] that only mentions a rivalry between Arkansas and Texas Tech in passing and mainly focuses on Arkansas-Texas) describe a significant rivalry from the teams' days in the  Southwestern Conference.   While the rivarry has cooled considerably in the past few decades, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  Frank Anchor 16:02, 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
The Chrome Cranks: It is my understanding that even with this much coverage, the fact that it all comes from one source means it doesn't count as multiple sources.  Or something like that.  Regardless, I see no other signs of notability that aren't themselves unsourced.  PROD was removed due to a >10-year-old PROD which was undone (still a silly rule but so be it), so now we're here.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , New York ,  and Ohio .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Just not enough coverage for an article; the musical group is discussed here [9] , but that's not enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some mention in Billboard from the link above for Gbooks [10] , and NJ.com [11] ...  Are we at BASIC with many trivial mentions?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NJ.com is good, the other is too brief.  Still bare minimum at best.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bob Bert , I guess, unless someone wants to add stuff.  PQ shows 89 results (for me), but most appear to be concert listings and mentions of the band touring with Mudhoney , Jon Spencer , etc.  There appear to be a few longer things-- Billboard , Melody Maker , St. Louis Post-Dispatch , and Toronto Star , among others, but I can't read full text for everything.  Newspapers.com and Newsbank (which WP doesn't subscribe to) often pick up the non-PQ stuff for '90s newspapers.  Caro7200 ( talk ) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there seems to be enough coverage for WP:GNG with Slug magazine, the sources named by Caro7200, the NJ.com and I also found a staff written bio at AllMusic here where there are also five staff written album reviews linked in the discography section, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ooh, there's something.  Dunno how I missed the AllMusic page, but that should be plenty.  I'm willing to withdraw for that.  Thanks.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Caro7200 , @ Oaktree b , the nom wants to withdraw.  Does Atlantic306's source change your minds?  -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] yes, it's better now that we've uncovered those Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Per Eggers: The one External link is to IMDb that describes the actors accomplishments, but no indepth content about the actor.  After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage.  Created on 21 November 2005 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has a reference to establish notability.  Thankyou for improving this one.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Swedish page is robust as an indication of notability and has 20 citations not from IMDb.  Added one from the SV wiki, will continue to work on it further.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 13:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Wp:GNG.  Improvment done.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 00:55, 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
LNER: This is beacause London North Eastern Railway is usually referred to by its abbreviation.  I am not sure if removing liquid neutral earthing resistor , which mentions LNER helps.  This can be shown by the evidence for the new LNER - ~16,000 and the old one - ~5500 .  However, the original Great Western Railway will always remain the primary topic over the modern GWR , as shown by many moves at Talk:Great_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Renaming .  JuniperChill ( talk ) 18:12, 28 February 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 February 28 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems like a valid disambig.  page.  Both the railways under "LNER" are valid search terms.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, for me, if people are searching LNER, they likely mean the current operator, not the old one.  I do not want to inconvience them by taking an extra step (just) to look for the modern LNER.  I also said the modern LNER has 3x the amount of views compared to the old one so those looking for the old LNER will use the hatnote to do so, that is the purpose of it.  JuniperChill ( talk ) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where on earth is your evidence for this?  The historic company is far more famous.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : LNER is more likely to refer to the major company which was 1/4 of British railways for 24 years than to a modern company which has operated for the last six years but may be swept away next time the cards are shuffled.  A dab page is the solution.  Pam D 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Prefer disambiguation over redirect, this way the user can choose best what article they want to read.  Killarnee ( talk ) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per PamD.  Mjroots ( talk ) 16:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to LNER (disambiguation) .  Should clearly actually primary redirect to the much better known London and North Eastern Railway , also almost always known by this abbreviation.  Note that it was moved to the current setup without discussion in 2018.  However, I should point out that at the end of the day this should have been a WP:RM discussion, not an AfD.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The original proposal was to turn a dab page into a redirect. That is not an RM matter. -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 23:35, 5 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
Any Given Sin: Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Found two sources from WP:ALBUMSOURCES search engine: [1] [2] The rest of the sources are AllMusic reviews.  Other sources (not in the list) include: [3] Brachy 08 (Talk) 02:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Also found [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , maybe this one as well [8] .  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:43, 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
Abdullah Syafi'i: Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   WP:GNG is met.   Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ( WP:NPOSSIBLE ).   Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources.  I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate.   Collectively they add up to significant coverage.   The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability ( WP:SUSTAINED ).  -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources. [22] -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English.  Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife.  Another here and so on here .  This gives a preview that subject passes GNG.  - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
A Girl Sets Out: Nexovia ( talk ) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Nexovia ( talk ) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not been able to verify them but it seems likely that Frey and Kelecsényi are reliable sources.  Have you checked and confirmed they aren't?  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are inline citations to two references and a third is mentioned in the bibliography.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article can be improved but reliable secondary sources are presented.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as referenced to multiple reliable book sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:09, 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
Velicham: Kailash29792 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only links I find are to youtube and non-RS blog/listicle sites.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This has since been dealt with.  Now I want to withdraw this, what is your new say?  Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography , where it is mentioned, and add some sources for verifiability.  (NB I had redirected the page at some point, see page talk and history)- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Edited: in light of the new sources added to the page by Srivin (the 1st one is page 3 and is a full article, although maybe much focused on legal matters), it looks like the page may be retained as a standalone article. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy notification to @ Donaldd23 : . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography .  As the original PRODder, I support a redirect.  Donald D23 talk to me 01:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Keep based on new citations added.  Donald D23 talk to me 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography .  No evidence that the subject meets GNG.  Please ping me if good sources are located.  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm not familiar enough with the new sources to change to support, but thanks for adding sources.  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw: I thank Srivin for helping find sources to help expand the article.  Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BennyOnTheLoose : .  Pinging you at your request, although it's up to you to say if you find the new sources good enough.  Also pinging @ Donaldd23 : and @ Oaktree b : out of courtesy, sorry if that was unwanted. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that BennyOnTheLoose has commented, and the nominator i.e. me says withdraw, can we call it a day?  Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not my call.  But no, we can't, because, although you have withdrawn the nomination, not everyone who participated has agreed the page should be kept as a standalone article.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 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