hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Abraham Julios : Google search (string:"abraham julios") turns up barely anything, and the lot of it is unusable as sources.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 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!  22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Maybe this is one of the deprecated places needing attention I. Wikipedia.  That doesn't mean a clergy if such office won't be entered.  By the Merit of the office, he is notable.  I don't seem the nominator took this in or maybe had been nominated generally with others.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:06, 3 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: no consensus
National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network : Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:26, 28 June 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!  23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , an example of WP:Ignore all rules .  The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc.  Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left.  I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant.  I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:24, 12 July 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!  23:13, 12 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: no consensus
Alekh Kumar Parida : Macbeejack ☎ 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Music ,  and India .  Macbeejack ☎ 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per above, not notable enough.  killer bee 07:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Odisha .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Alekh is a notable singer.  The news shows this very clearly.  Even the coalition of two more people with Alekh is covered by the news channels.  Historical Heritages of Bihar ( talk ) 06:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Subject of the article genuinely passes the WP:GNG notability guidelines, as far he has many news articles in Hindi and in English also.  ( Koilwaar1 ( talk ) 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment No policy but I thought I'd mention that today I've been reviewing lots of newly created articles about people involved in music or film who have no real credits to their name.  This was another article almost identical to others I've come across, created by Historical Heritages of Bihar and others by Koilwaar1.  (like Sean David Lowe ).  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found these Below, should pass WP:BASIC [15] , [16] , [17] Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review Wasilatlovekesy's proposal of sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:43, 29 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: no consensus
Bihari folklore : Fails WP:V .  — Mikeanand ( talk ) 04:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  What can be sourced properly can be transferred to the article on Bihar (the state) or the Biharis (its people).  Should sufficient sources turn up, this can become its own article again.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Mythology ,  and Bihar .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article is a mess, but I cannot understand the Fails WP:V comment.  The books cited exist, appear to meet everything in WP:RS , and are directly relevant to the subject.  Without some specific reasons to dismiss the RSs, there is no policy-bases rationale for this AfD.  Perhaps the nominator could expand on the perceived problems?  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Last1in : The only problem I have is the fact that it is based on the synthesis of sources.  I wrote "Fails WP:V " as a lot of the material is unsourced/poorly sourced.  I have no problem if we keep this article after removing the original research.  I don't think it is ready for the main space just now.  Maybe, after some work in the draftspace in order to properly source it, it will be ready for the main space.  Thank you. — Mikeanand ( talk ) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to add, a merger of the reliably sourced content from this article to Bihari culture can also be a option to go for.  Thank you. — Mikeanand ( talk ) 16:43, 4 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!  05:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There is no consensus here right now but I'm willing to relist it once again.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I also think this article is a mess, but cleaning it up would be better than just deleting it.  WonderCanada ( talk ) 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: no consensus
SeaTable : Interviews, paid columns and WP:MILL stuff.  Edit.pdf ( talk ) 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The TechCrunch article on SeaTable appears to be a genuine piece by one of its journalists (Rita Liao); the WP list of sources says that in that case, it's a reliable source.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:13, 14 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!  07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete The Tech Crunch article above establishes GNG for software.  However, despite apparent good faith creation, this article's content is full of marketing jargon and phrasing, so I'm not sure it should remain up in its current form.  — siro χ o 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources in German for this German outfit.  [36] seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One in Business Insider in German, also seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable in another Wikipedia version -- DH22 Mim ( talk ) 08:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DH22 Mim .  Each Wikipedia has its own notability rules.  enwiki's notability rules are some of the stricter ones, so comparing to other wikis that probably have easier notability rules is not a great argument.  See also WP:OTHERLANGS .  However, good sources from articles in other wikis could certainly be checked and mentioned here.  Finding good sources and linking to them would be a much stronger argument.  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 09:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is currently not for the company but rather for their product.  I think it should probably be updated to focus more on the company instead, sources like TechCrunch's article would be a better fit that way.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:54, 28 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: no consensus
Manu Daftary : He manages money and investment, not clear that he is even notable within that group of people.  I can't find anything else which would count towards BLP JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable money manager, no hits found for him (and only three total on the name). Not meeting GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: It appears that there has been some spotty coverage on the subject from various newspapers, although much of it has more to do with the fund itself.  A possible solution is to delete this article and merge relevant content to a new article about the fund.  [ [6] ][ [7] ][ [8] ][ [9] ] User:Let'srun 12:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep also.  The two Philly Inquirer articles found by User:Let'srun certainly qualify, as does, arguably, the 2004 USA Today piece [ [10] ].   Also see this CNN article: [11] .  Fiachra10003 ( talk ) 01:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 21:23, 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: no consensus
Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim : ltb d l ( talk ) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Portugal .  ltb d l ( talk ) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The coordinates go to an entirely different place, Gandarinha.  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Balazar .  Coordinates revised.  Gandra is a hamlet within the parish of Balazar; it's listed in that article.  Portugese Wikipedia has nothing on it other than a link to Citypopulation.de.  My view is that this would need to pass the GNG for a separate article as although populated it doesn't fulfil the legally recognised aspect of WP:NPLACE .  Needs additional sources put forward to write something, otherwise it will remain a one sentence stub.  Rupples ( talk ) 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep seems to be a census settlement per City Population would would mean it would probably pass GEOLAND.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 22:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be better to cite the census itself.  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to be a clearly separate settlement so satisfies WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:27, 2 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 ) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:14, 11 April 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, Shadow311 ( talk ) 13:28, 18 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: no consensus
Damour Vocal Band : Fails WP:NBAND .  Htanaungg ( talk ) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran .  Htanaungg ( talk ) 05:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] well the artist that they are, they are active on social media platforms, so the top links that google bring up lead to their blogs and YT channels.  here is a link showing they perform in a notable television show called Khandevane .  here is an article about their performance on national TV ( IRIB TV1 ) which was a big deal at the time, since they had female singers in the band.  they are the first band in Iran with an album in A cappella genre here is a article about that.  also one in VOA farsi.  they won the third place In choir category in 27th Fajr International Music Festival .  and they had many different concerts, but I don't think those concerts count as tours.  I believe they qualify for notability under section 7 (since they are the most prominent A cappella band in Iran) also section 9 (they won a Fajr Festival Award) and section 10 (they have performed on national TV and a prominent TV show) Breezingsorrow ( talk ) 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the sources provided in this discussion by Breezingsorrow that show that they have appeared on national television and received coverage for that as well as awards, so passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 7 and 10, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 09:55, 22 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: no consensus
DYSS-TV : Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network .  - WayKurat ( talk ) 14:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG per WayKurat's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GMA Network , clearly not enough reliable sources (only one there actually being reliable) to support it as a standalone article.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems to be the same case as DYXX-TV .  Might be a case for a merge, unless someone could shed light on why there are different articles to what seems to be the same network of TVs that don't have notability when isolated from the others.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:59, 10 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: no consensus
Talk:Charter Vocational High School : Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this.  Moritoriko ( talk ) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Mexico .  Moritoriko ( talk ) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This Afd is malformed.  The school's article, not its talk page is the target.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 13:15, 23 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: no consensus
Lorrie Lynch : Iljhgtn ( talk ) 02:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some cursory searching of this subject turns up enough to convince me.  For example, Exploring journalism and the media has 17 citations per Google Scholar, including a review [28] published in a journal.  I also see some sigcov here: [29] , and other evidence of influence in subject's field: [30] [31] [32] [33] .  Note, some text from the apparent COI does remain and should probably be rewritten/verified.   — siro χ o 09:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and United States of America .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She should qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) because she has written several textbooks.  She was a founder of and a journalist at USA Today and she wrote several textbooks, which should qualify for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" under Wikipedia:Notability (people) .  Starlighsky ( talk ) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Starlighsky [ reply ] Delete - nothing here to suggest notability.  Writing books does not qualify, not does working for a newspaper.  Deb ( talk ) 10:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this AFD discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 02:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or maybe draftify, not sure there is enough there but seems borderline.  Noticed the subject also seems to have contributed to her article briefly in 2008.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've taken a pass on the article.  Still needs work but it's in a better state now.  I stick with my ! vote after further investigation.  — siro χ o 05:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck delete vote above per Siroxo.  Hesitant to vote keep still but will not stand in the way of that.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete Admittedly, there are lots of other academics with articles on this site about which this could also be said, but this article does not seem to establish notability under WP:GNG guidelines.  However, I won’t object if there is consensus to keep.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
John O'Reilly (baseball) : This is all the coverage I have found of him and it would fail WP:BLP1E .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and New Jersey .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some coverage while in college [94] , but not really helping notability.  He plays in Ireland now, so there is coverage there.  [95] and [96] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 19 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 ) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus