hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Pace Center for Girls: Bedivere ( talk ) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida .  Bedivere ( talk ) 22:55, 23 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!  23:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could've been softdeleted though.  Bedivere ( talk ) 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another closer might chose to do that.  But I don't like to delete an article based on one editor's opinion.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough Bedivere ( talk ) 06:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Multiple newspaper articles are already present as references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which goes in detail into the center.  Bedivere ( talk ) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think any WP:BEFORE was performed.  A quick look at Google Scholar will show that their are many, many publications that talk in-depth about the orginization.  Of the references in the article: PNJ and JJIE has significant coverage about the organization.  And a search on google news will show many, many more.  (Note, I am the creator of the article).  -- Mike 🗩 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I went to Proquest via the wikipedia library, and found a lot of information.  Some of it, like this is definitely significant coverage .  So is this journal article.  There are more.  Pick your notability guideline , this meets it.  I guess WP:NCORP is probably the right one, maybe WP:NSCHOOL ?  In any case, I would say the notability is clear, no matter how you classify the article.  Jacona ( talk ) 17:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to have sufficient references for support.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:28, 7 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
FIFA Two: It was, like any other small scandal, covered by some press coverage, but not nearly enough for it to be anything significant to have its own article.  The article is basically all just copy-pasted from other sources, with potential copyright violations, and does not provide an in-depth analysis of what happened.  It is also not written in accordance with most Wikipedia standards.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  To my read, the applicable guidelines here are WP:NEO , WP:SIGCOV , WP:LASTING and WP:COPYVIO .  In terms of NEO, there are more than a few reliable/verifiable sources which refer to the term "FIFA Two".  (Including The Times (UK) , RTÉ , Irish Times , Irish Examiner , Irish Independent , Wales Online . ) So I don't think we can delete on the basis of the term being a neologism.  In terms of SIGCOV, there are more than a few reliable mainstream news sources which deal with the topic in some depth.  ( Irish Examiner , Belfast Telegraph , Irish Times , RTÉ , ESPN , etc.)  So I'm not sure I could support deletion on SIGCOV basis.  In terms of LASTING, to counter any WP:NOTNEWS concerns, there appears to have been sustained coverage (after the fact) of the "FIFA rule change" that was precipitated by the events.  In terms of COPYVIO, I don't understand this argument.  Not only could any content issues (like the questionable editorialsing in the "precedent" section) be fixed rather than the article deleted , a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that the only materially "copy/pasted" text is the two extracts from the FIFA rule book.  Both of which are quoted text.  That doesn't really fall within the scope of COPYVIO.  Personally I'm not seeing (or perhaps just not following) the argument for deletion...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to something like 2007 Cork City transfer delays .   If there were a better redirect target than Cork City F.C. , I would support a redirect.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Guliolopez .  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Giuliolopez.  Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 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: keep
List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football ,  and Lists .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Pac-12 (formerly Pac-10) football rivalries are widely covered as a group or set: for example USA Today , ESPN , The Press Democrat , Salt Lake Tribune , Arkansas Democrat Gazette , and an entire 7-page chapter of this book .  Left guide ( talk ) 11:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Left guide's well researched deep dive.  Was there a "before" search done on this topic?  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe a WP:BEFORE search wasn't done in this case, as this clearly passes WP:LISTN and has received a plenty of coverage.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:01, 29 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
Tensei Kono: Having created one or two possibly notable works does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR .  Also fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  First off, the Japanese Wikipedia entry for this author has a lot more detail about this author's life and career along with some citations.  Tensei Kono won the Mystery Writers of Japan Award and was a finalist twice for the Naoki Prize , which strongly proves notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people) additional criteria #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor").  Sadly, it appears this author has not had much work translated into English but he does have stories in Speculative Japan: Outstanding Tales of Japanese Science Fiction and Fantasy , The Best Japanese Science Fiction Stories and The World Treasury of Science Fiction .  I also found some citations about this author in places like Moderne japanische Literatur in deutscher Übersetzung and a 1983 issue of Extrapolation (where he is called an important science fiction writer).  Add in all this with the other awards the author won or was a finalist for and this author meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nominated for the Naoki Prize twice twice, so meeting ANYBIO point 1, and had three of his works adapted into films, meeting point 3 of NAUTHOR. CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've now added more information and citations to the article, using the Japanese Wiki article as a guide.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR from award wins/nominations.  There's also at least one film of his works ( Black Sun (1964 film) ).  [28] .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 14:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY ( [29] ) and no WP:BEFORE attempt (looking at other wikipedia entries, especially the one in the subject's native language, should be the bare minimum before starting an AfD).  C avarrone 07:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Thank you SouthernNights for expanding this.  The nom should have done a better BEFORE by looking at the JP article, although the end result here seems to be a win-win (article improved, passes GNG clearly now).  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:45, 16 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
North East Rugby League Premier Division: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and merge useful info from North East Rugby League Regional Division and rename North East Rugby League .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Ninja of Heisei: No newer sources (unless someone can find in Japanese) about a conviction, so not sure this passes WP:SUSPECT or even WP:BLP1E .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  It's not BLP1E  as it doesn't meet criteria 3 -- the individuals role was both substantial and well documented.  Now, it's pretty well-reported that the suspect willingly confessed to the crimes (eg. [37] ), so a minor rewording and it would almost certainly not violate WP:SUSPECT .  Moreso, it is line with a criteria of WP:CRIME For perpetrators ...  The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual .  The only real concern is sustained coverage.  Given that the subject is Japanese, I'll lean towards it being likely we're just having trouble finding them in English.  — siro χ o 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - has coverage including https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/japan-s-ninja-cat-burglar-umasked-as-74yearold-man-a3667581.html and https://time.com/4997946/ninja-of-heisei-thief-japan/ to establish notability and verifiability.  Interesting subject whose inclusion contributes encyclopedic information.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , famous crime.  Fulmard ( talk ) 19:50, 19 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
Caribbean Lowlands: Same as Southern Caribbean and Caribbean South America .  Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latin America and Caribbean .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot sources in Google Scholar that use the term, mainly in giving the location of animals or plants being studied as a region of specific countries, but I couldn't find anything that actually defines it beyond a general term for the lower-elevation area between the mountains and the Caribbean Sea, nothing that describes it as a whole.  Most use a descriptive lowercase "lowlands" rather than as a specific name.  Nor are there other articles on here that list it as a Central American region or even something that would be a good merge target.  Therefore without usable sources or substantive content to include here, delete .  Reywas92 Talk 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's lots of sources that use the term in scholarly articles and physical geography books, mostly in the Costa Rican sense, such as [4] [5] .  Needs expansion, not deletion.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added sources to the article.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:48, 2 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!  21:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep although consider userfying.  a simple search ("caribbean lowlands" -wiki) here shows lots of sources both about the biome and the cultural area.  The current stub is pretty bad, so I would not mind adopting it and working on it after my students' prom and finals are over.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  It is significant that we have an experienced editor asserting that they are willing to work on improving this article if it is Kept or if editors believe it should be moved to Draft space.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep valid notable geographical object, plenty of hits in books.  - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough definition in sourcing to pass GNG.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:28, 17 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
Silverlight (disambiguation): LOOKSQUARE ( 👤️ · 🗨️ ) talk 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : hatnote from Microsoft to Terry is all that is needed.  Pam D 08:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep with the addition of "Silver Light" entries.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Clarityfriend's addition of two related articles supported by convention of style .  I think it remains a useful enough DAB page that it is not necessary to delete it, given the term does have various unrelated uses.  I may suggest that Silver light (disambiguation) could be created as a redirect also, given the above additions are not a single word.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and add Silver light (disambiguation) as a redir, per Bungle .  Owen× ☎ 15:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as improved.  BD2412 T 19:37, 19 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
Clivina jodasi: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES .  Discussions are underway to put this criterion on a firmer footing, but as for now, all properly configured stubs on validly described species are kept.  (Just out of curiosity, what do you consider an "independent" source for a species...?) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:37, 12 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!  06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , taxonomy articles and their notability sure are an interesting topic.  But when you think about it, it can be pretty clear: Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://eurekamag.com/research/023/531/023531466.php I have no idea either, it's not like a species is owned by anyone original description of species I won't pay 30 dollars for that one, but these tend to be multiple pages ✔ Yes https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5ZB4D assumably reliable dataset the whole page is about the species ✔ Yes https://www.gbif.org/species/8426863 per above per above ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  But you're correct on the fact that adding detailed descriptions about beetles can be hard, if the access to the original publication isn't bought.  But it does exist.  NotAGenious ( talk ) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article subject does not "require" additional text to become (more) notable.  A description paragraph will be added whenever a future editor decides that they wish to do so.  Current sources as provided are independent and subject is covered in multiple venues.  Loopy30 ( talk ) 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSPECIES .  Jfire ( talk ) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The first half of the nomination amounts to saying that the article is too short and so it shouldn't exist at all, and the second half is belied by the table above.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:50, 24 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
Johan Santos: Fails WP:NACTOR .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and Philippines .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He won Best Actor in the Star Awards, the Philippines' major award-giving body for television which is the equivalent of the US' Emmy Awards.  That alone should merit a keep for Filipino actors.  --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep per Tito Pao's argument.  I stumbled upon some news about part of his personal life and his near-death experience .  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:48, 15 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: keep
Tyler Laubscher: JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and New Zealand .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's this and this along with lots of other coverage in national and Manawatu local media.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT .  Paora ( talk ) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sufficient for WP:SPORTCRIT alongside significant coverage in Stuff (website) .  Coop ( talk ) 09:40, 27 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
DJ Patife: Only sources found are sources that are non-independent and interviews in Portuguese.  Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil .  Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:BASIC SIGCOV in an Australian newspaper [26] SIGCOV in UK paper [27] SIGCOV in a Time Out guide [28] SIGCOV in a Scottish paper [29] Couple reviews on allmusic that provide some coverage of the subject [30] [31] There seems to be a lot of snippets of coverage in Muzik and other dead tree sources of that era.  Probably also meets WP:MUSICBIO#7 for Drum and bass per some of the above sources as well as NYT [32] .  — siro χ o 04:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified by Siroxo.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:12, 2 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