hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Laurel Neme: I don't see that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm thinking she is notable per WP:NAUTHOR .  Here are formal book reviews for her 2009 work, in addition to general media attention into the work: New Scientist , E–The Environmental Magazine , Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences , and The Oregonian .  Kirkus Reviews reviewed 2 picture books she wrote: [6] [7] .  There is also this article from The Burlington Free Press on her 2009 book that might be good to add, but I haven't had the time to look at it yet—please mind the gruesome photograph though.  Best, Bridget (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Vermont .  Bridget (talk) 02:11, 26 January 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, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep sourcing is not great but she does seem like a notable figure.  Llajwa ( talk ) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG based on reviews of work posted above by Bridget.  An entertainer with reviews of their work at this level would certainly be viewed as meeting GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found a review of Animal Investigators in Publishers Weekly , and at the Wikipedia Library, a Jan 2015 review from NSTA Recommends ( National Science Teachers Association ) for Orangutan Houdini ; a March 2010 Animal Investigators review from Choice via ProQuest 225690255 ; a March 2014 review of Animal Investigators from Connect via ProQuest 1522744253 ; the 2009 Burlington Free Press report on Neme and Animal Investigators ( ProQuest 439866714 ) looks helpful (no photo in this version), and ProQuest also has some further coverage/reviews of Animal Investigators (e.g. NPR interview, local news).  WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:18, 2 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
List of blade materials: Some of the info is LEAD is not trivial but there's no sourcing.  The only sources that talk about this as a group are not reliable; it's mostly based on self-published work (not RS) and company info sheets (which have info about individual materials but not the group as a whole).  I'm not saying it's not a notable topic because it could be, but I don't think there's anything currently on this page that meets our criteria for inclusion.  I tried to make edits but I felt like I was just removing things because there weren't sources I felt like I could mine.  This is my first time submitting an AfD so please correct me if I'm doing it wrong.  SomeoneDreaming ( talk ) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - AfD is not for clean up.  Skyerise ( talk ) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have been using this article for reference while shopping for pocket knives for my own use.   I have found it accurate and useful.   I suppose it may be too trivial for knife makers, but not for consumers.  David R. Ingham ( talk ) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The list appears a useful summary although it might be better classified as part of a series of "alloys good for this type of application" articles.  I'd be a little uncomfortable if it could be demonstrated that Wp was being subverted to be a resource for "survivalists" etc., but at the same time feel it's wrong to delete information if accurate.  MarkMLl ( talk ) 11:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Technology ,  and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the topic is important, though I agree that sourcing could be a lot better.  There are TV shows on this topic, so I am sure there will be paper or glowing screen references available too.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 22:40, 30 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
Dance cover: lullabying ( talk ) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment perhaps redirect/merge with Choreography ? - KH-1 ( talk ) 06:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Music .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:37, 22 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!  02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Very clearly meets GNG.  I've added two sources to the article and improved it a bit [23] [24] .  Article still needs some love.  — siro χ o 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a third source to the article, NYT [25] — siro χ o 03:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Several more added.  — siro χ o 07:21, 29 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!  05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Verging on No consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Call it a WP:HEY Keep if you want.  The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient for establishing notability.  I'm sure there's a lot more to be said about this trend and its history, too.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources have been found to establish notability.  Consider moving to Cover dance since that's the term used in most sources.  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to agree with the move.  From my little research while improving the article, "cover dance" is the activity/hobby/community/etc, whereas "dance cover" is the actual performance and/or recording, so cover dance is the broader term.  We could probably just do a WP:BOLD move after the AFD closes.  — siro χ o 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the article's current refs.  Thanks for adding them, @ Siroxo !  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:45, 14 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
Finnish School of Watchmaking: WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and Finland .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted in the revision history, the article has been improved after the first deletion nomination by @ SailingInABathTub : with additional sourcing from reliable sources (two NYtimes articles), replacing a previously used blog post source.  Diletantique ( talk ) 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  One can find many articles about the school in Finnish newspapers and magazines.  (e.g. Yle.fi , hs.fi , Tekniikka & Talous , most of which are unfortunately behind the paywall)  I am not familiar with WP:NCORP , so I let others decide whether these are enough to pass the test.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage by e.g. Yle and Helsingin Sanomat , which are both reliable: [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , etc.  The National Library of Finland 's  newspaper archive (online access highly limited for non-researchers) also has a ton of hits, e.g. Länsiväylä 12.2.2022 (two-thirds of a spread) and 20.11.2021 (half page), Kauppalehti 23.4.2020 (two pages), Savon Sanomat 28.2.2020 (two-thirds spread), Helsingin Uutiset 12.2.2020 (third of a page), etc.  Also a whole bunch of historical hits, e.g. both Uusi Suomi and Etelä-Suomen Sanomat in December 1959, Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 7.11.1945, etc.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ljleppan.  Satisfies WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:59, 22 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
Red diaper baby: Insufficient sources.  Was not able to find when doing WP:BEFORE .  Riverbend21 ( talk ) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Riverbend21 ( talk ) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are already a great many references in the article that explain this term's notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left – the phrase does not seem notable independently of the book which invented it.  The article contains a total of four sentences including the lede.  Insufficient number of sources, and of the present ones, only LA Progressive (not a notable publication) touches on the phrase; The New York Times mentions it only in its headline, Marin Independent Journal is about a book and its author, the other two references are about books and are used to source just their existence.  The further reading section seems like a general collection of everything else that merely mentions it.  Categories and interwiki link can be kept on the redirect.  – Vipz ( talk ) 11:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The term "red diaper baby" has been around long before Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left was published.  See this Google Scholar search .  As well, see this magazine article from 1989, for example: New York Magazine .  New York Media, LLC.  1989-02-13.  Other notable uses of the term include https://lccn.loc.gov/2004463389 and https://lccn.loc.gov/2017900690 , as well as the summary provided by the publisher for https://lccn.loc.gov/2022931969 See also http://ptsss.org/docs/nst121.pdf#page=103 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's the case, then delete ?  Significant coverage of the phrase itself establishes notability, not "notable use" for whatever purposes they use it for.  – Vipz ( talk ) 06:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] if what's the case?  Kire1975 ( talk ) 05:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BEFORE : there are plenty of sources.  I added one.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The page needs cleanup, but the sources are plenty sufficient to establish notability.  Kire1975 ( talk ) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable concept.  pburka ( talk ) 23:57, 23 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
En pièces détachées: Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music ,  and France .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Lots of references in the corresponding French article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_pi%C3%A8ces_d%C3%A9tach%C3%A9es Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A Google Books search turns up many paragraphs of coverage in books about Hallyday and French rock.  I can also find a number of in-depth contemporary reviews in major newspapers/magazines which suggest notability.  Appears to meet WP:NALBUM .  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:56, 5 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
Dea Liane: The director certainly gets praised but Liane is only mentioned as one of the cast (albeit a leading member of the cast).  A Google search reveals very little, suggesting Liane is only at the start of her film career.  Fails WP:GNG Sionk ( talk ) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  She received extensive coverage in multiple extremely reliable sources ( Le Monde , La Croix , Télérama , Le Figaro, L'Humanité, and so on).  I've added some of it to the page.  More exists.  See for yourself. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably a week pass at AUTHOR, there is coverage in L'Humanite and Le Figaro for the novel.  Rest seems ok, could use better sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This story about her acting career in Le Monde [36] and this, a long NPR-style interview over her novel on public radio in France [37] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the L'Humanite and Le Monde sources, among others.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:20, 23 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
Girls' Brigade Singapore: Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability!  ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , me !) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the strength of added references.  Patronage by the country's president is an argument in favour of notability as an important part of youth culture in Singapore.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:08, 6 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!  02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Eastmain .  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 07:34, 12 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
Sheikh Ahmadullah: These sources do not establish notability of the person.  AlbeitPK ( talk ) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Islam ,  and Bangladesh .  AlbeitPK ( talk ) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bangladeshi newspaper constantly covered significance news and column about Sheikh Ahmadullah.  This proves that he has fulfilled WP:GNG .  I suspect the removal proponent is aggressively trying to remove Ahmadullah and his organization's articles.  Because in recent times he has proposed the removal of these two.  And he didn't make any edits on the wiki other than these.  ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 08:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable person.  Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 16:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Independent and reliable sources are available.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 11:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: While it has been variously asserted by nom and the current majority for keep that the sources do/don't establish GNG, there has been no discussion of individual sources that could move towards decisively  substantiating such evaluations.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [26] Kaler Kantho , [27] Jugantor , [28] Republic TV and many more notable, reliable and established news link can be presented about him.  See google search [29] [30] [31] 202.134.11.243 ( talk ) 15:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep subject appears to meet WP:GNG .  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:04, 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: keep
Freda Ayisi: She still fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Ghana .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets GNG and SPORTBASIC with significant coverage in the Islington Gazette and Athletic sources.  gobonobo + c 07:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Athletic article has few sentences specifically on Ayisi and heavily pads the article with quotes from her/stuff that has nothing to do with her.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 16:55, 3 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
Inma Puig: It may be WP:AB , clearly nothing to pass WP:ANYBIO .  She has written some books, and she had some media coverage as psychologist of Barcelona, but without any kind of significant impact.  Most sources are quite promotional-like, mainly because of her involvement with sports.  Chiserc ( talk ) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Psychology ,  and Spain .  Chiserc ( talk ) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - One of most prominent an maybe the most football psychologist, with many sources such as [38] from El Pais, one of Spain's leading newspapers... and [39] from Galicia's leading newspaper...  Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 11:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I am not convinced on the notability of this psychologist, since most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain).  In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources.  The source you mentioned is actually an interview, if I understood correctly, and, indeed, she is covered by media, but most sources I found are promotional-like coverage and nothing to validate clearly WP:GNG .  Chiserc ( talk ) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "interviews" have secondary coverage...  Also I'm pretty sure using "most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain). In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources" is an invalid and bizarre reason to delete an English wikipedia page...  She is one of the most prominent if not the most prominent football psychologist...  Article needs improvement, not deletion Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think there's enough out there to show notability.  Article needs an expansion/re-write to demonstrate this.  Giant Snowman 18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Spanish-language sources seem sufficient to show notability.  Notability does not depend on language.  If you can't check the sources available in a relevant language, ask someone to help, don't go to AfD.  Telling people who object to your AfD to leave to Spanish Wikipedia is discriminatory and unhelpful.  See WP:NONENG .  Akakievich ( talk ) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep