hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Crime in St. Louis: I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page.  Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information).  This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone.  Damiens the Regicide ( talk ) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Police , Politics , Social science ,  and Missouri .  Damiens the Regicide ( talk ) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article appears to show notability with St. Louis commonly ranked as one of the most dangerous cities.  AfD is not cleanup.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect A confusing article that mish-mashes data for both St. Louis City and St. Louis County, Missouri unreasonably into one article, and poorly with out-of-date data and jargon (if I'm not going to look up the meaning of "index crime" the average reader isn't going to do it either, not to mention the article it's linked to is barely sourced).  This should solely cover St. Louis City, and a redirect to St. Louis#Crime is highly suggested here as that seems to be much more up-to-date and focused, along with being less prone to edit warring, than this article.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Tag for improvements.   There was no discussion on the article talk page for six years before this nomination for deletion, so Alternatives to Deletion such as improvement have not been considered yet.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to St. Louis#Crime .  Don't have to create a new page for crime in every region unless it is a significant issue.  Raymond3023 ( talk ) 08:44, 5 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!  23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Tag , aggreeing with Robert McClenon , As pointed out by Conyo14 crime, and its coverage, is significant in St. Louis.  Frigyes06 ( talk ) 17:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve .  There is certainly no prohibition against having an article on crime in a specific city (e.g. Crime in New York City , Crime in Hong Kong ), and there is no reason we couldn't have Crime in Davenport if there were sufficient sources to support encyclopedic notability.  BD2412 T 01:38, 16 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
Mercedes-AMG G 65: G class is a perfectly good page, and this is a minor variant.  Saad Mirza ( talk ) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge YBSOne ( talk ) 09:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Category:Mercedes-Benz G-Class .  There are nine articles involved, but the others are not up for deletion.   This one is sourced and informative.  Why delete one and keep the others?  Mercedes is globally known, and a top-of-the-line brand as auto brands go.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no sourced information on this model in the main G-Class page, which is already extremely long.  It makes a lot sense to leave this so people can read about this variant, without having to scroll through that page to find a brief summary.  In fact the G-class has so many variants over its history, having smaller article like this that is actually about one design is much more straightforward.  The main article has really become about the decades long history of the G-class now.  A75 ( talk ) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am surprised there is no interest in merging the content with sources, as there is nothing on the main page right now, but a brief unsourced summary.  I highly recommend preserving the content, its one of only a handful of V-12 suv in history.  A75 ( talk ) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the time being.  The article is passably-written and suitably referenced, and the deletion rationale has no basis in policy.  (That said, Mercedes-Benz G-Class is in desperate need of a page split - the W463 sections at minimum. After such a page split, it would probably made sense to merge this, but not now.) -- Sable232 ( talk ) 01:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep G class is a broad topic, and this article is justified as a significant sub-type.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 18:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per all above.  Svartner ( talk ) 05:16, 23 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
Bintan Lagoon Resort: Weak independent significant coverage.  The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy.  Uhooep ( talk ) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Closed or not, it easily passes requirements and is well sourced.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  per WP:PROMO .  The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort.  Also, the main contributor of the article,

Discussion outcome: keep
Creepy treehouse: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ComputerUserUser ( talk ) 22:53, 8 March 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 March 8 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Most Wikipedia articles begin with a definition.  That does not make them dictionary content if they go on to discuss the topic as such rather than the word that names the article.  That seems to be the case here.  Although the lead section and one source offer definitions, the other sources and some of the current content discuss the educational issue.  (My !vote is weak because I don't know about the issue. The sources do seem to establish notability, though.)  Cnilep ( talk ) 02:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above and also per this section of the [[ Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. I've indefblocked the nominator for incompetence and general inflexibility (the latter shown by the nomination statement here). Graham87 ( talk ) 03:21, 9 March 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!  21:59, 15 March 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!  22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above.  Could be a better article, but it's already more than just a WP:DICTDEF .  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:15, 23 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
Nilkamal Singh: no reliable sources availble in article Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A lot of reliable Hindi sources are available for the article.  News18 , Zee News (Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand is a part of Zee Media Corporation ), Times of India , ABP news , Jagran are all important media houses of India.  Also, articles of singers less notable than him are available and included in Wikipedia.  For example Priyanka Singh , Ritesh Pandey (singer) .  I will be expanding it in near future and more than 50 Sources are available for it from trusted media houses.  Admantine123 ( talk ) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some sources covering the personality in depth ( WP:THREE )- [8] , since the subject belong to regional film Industry Bhojpuri Films , we have most of our sources in Hindi language; Bhojpuri is a dialect of Hindi.This source talking about him becoming one of the most viewed singer in Bhojpuri music industry.  (From ABP News ) [9] , this source says that in 2022, he left Pawan Singh and Khesari Lal Yadav in viewership in the beginning of that year.  It also talks about him as one of the established singer of industry.  (From ABP News ) [10] this source specially covers his biography and tells us that he left Khesari Lal Yadav behind in Net Worth.  ( ABP News )  Admantine123 ( talk ) 07:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , India ,  and Bihar .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with the Admantine123 Views.  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:34, 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: keep
Tetouan Archaeological Museum: My BEFORE search (in English) didn't show much outside of tourism websites.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Morocco .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Archaeology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’ve added the interlanguage link, some new material and seven refs.  There are plenty more and I haven’t even looked in Arabic yet.  Mccapra ( talk ) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - loads of sources in the appropriate languages, as added.  Ingratis ( talk ) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  Narky Blert ( talk ) 11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Mccapra and Ingratis. --Asqueladd ( talk ) 15:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Reliable sources have been provided for the article, and you have the final decision whether to leave it or delete it.  You are the ones with experience.  Thank you Trabeltomed ( talk ) 16:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable museum with several good sources, even if they aren’t in English.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 02:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article was only 2 hours old when nominated.  I would have WP:BOLDly kept per consensus, but I think attention still needs to be directed at the language of the article.  Puffy claims such as "its historical legacy extends back more than a century" should be substantiated.  Also, "The Tetouan Museum includes a collection of archaeological and historical pieces dating back to various time periods": which museum doesn't?  The article should also be moved to spell its name Tétouan .  Geschichte ( talk ) 06:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 06:51, 25 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
Din Dong: Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Hong Kong .  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seems to be some (actually, quite a bit of) indication of WP:GNG being met, at least in Chinese press: [52] [53] [54] [55] .  The cat has been made the theme of a coastal walkway in Hong Kong [56] [57] , and a bus advertisement based on the character made it to the news [58] [59] [60] .  Probably it's just that the character isn't very well known in the English world.  S5A-0043 Talk 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Also, I found two English sources, but they don't really talk about the subject in depth: [61] and [62] .  Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 06:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I've deorphanized the article, so it should be good to go.  Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 06:08, 27 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
Suppachai Srivijit: .  Despite my search efforts, I was unable to locate substantial information.  It is possible that there may be more coverage in Thai-language newspapers.  I kindly request any editors from Thailand to provide sources that could assist in establishing the individual's notability.  Based on the currently cited sources, it is evident that the individual falls significantly short of meeting the required notability standards.  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople ,  and Thailand .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Positioning Magazine [23] [24] and Manager [25] sources already present in the article at the start of this AfD should satisfy the GNG.  Why do you think otherwise?  In any case, there's also this appearance on the life documentary/talk show programme Kon Kon Kon in 2011.  [26] While these sources are interview-based, they all include considerable in-depth introductions as assessed by the writers/hosts, given in their own words.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Article title was misspelled. It has been moved to Suppachai Srivijit . -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Google news search of him [27] Those are considered reliable news sources recognized by Google (newspapers, magazines, TV channels).  As you can see from the date of each news, he appear in news pretty much weekly or monthly, and this went far back for a decade or two.  He is the top celeb agent in Thailand.  -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 09:28, 1 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
Minister of Communications (India): Recommend that we Redirect to that article.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 17:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Lists ,  and India .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article is solely on the list of ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers who served in the Ministry which underwent various changes since 1947.  While the article "Ministry of Communications (India)" is based on the structure of the ministry.  I believe a separate page for the list of ministers is necessary.  Such pages also exist for other ministerial lists, such as Minister of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare , Minister of Finance (India) , etc.  -- Oritsu.me ( talk ) 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST (eg BRICS Ministers of Communications annual meeting ; perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK (far too much content to fit into the Ministry article itself); every single member is notable (noting also WP:LISTPURP-NAV ).  Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment we need one article or the other.  It looks like all the information about ministers is already included in the ministry article.  This was a redirect until recently and I think the redirect should be restored.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The ministry article is about the whole ministry.  This is a list of the ministers, all of whom are notable.  This is a common split; see for example List of presidents of the United States .  This article should probably be renamed to something along the lines of List of ministers of communication of India , à la List of ministers of defence of the Netherlands .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is the article mentioning list of ministers and it should be their because other articles like Minister of Railways is having this type of article.  Ankur0745 ( talk ) 07:42, 26 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
Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice: Tagged for notability since 2011 Donald D23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Discrimination ,  and United Kingdom .  Donald D23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 sources currently in the article (1-2 paragraphs in independent books),  And also: The Times ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wednesdays-tv-beauty-and-the-beast-ugly-face-of-prejudice-vx8zdd587p9 ), The Trinidad Guardian ( https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2.427232.4d2a20d4cf ), The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/jul/09/line-of-duty-twenty-twelve ), and The Telegraph .  I say: Keep . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Mushy Yank in The Times , The Guardian , and The Daily Telegraph .  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of new sources cited here.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:38, 29 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
Panama Canal fence: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous ( talk • contribs ) (above text rescued from the edit summary of creation , after Allan Nonymous confirmed they intended to go through with the nomination . The seven-day countdown starts now.) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Panama and United States of America .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article appears well sourced and well documented, even if the importance of the fence may be not even remotely compared to the Berlin Wall (although such a comparison is understandable at the local level), I think the article as it is is fine.  I don't see why the information presented here also shouldn't be added to the other articles without needing to delete this one.  -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The sources already in the article establish notability.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 21:43, 29 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