hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Reformed fundamentalism: I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist.  That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is.  You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else.  I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it.  I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify.  But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT .  The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists."  The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God , since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism.  But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism.  Jfhutson ( talk ) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:25, 3 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!  07:36, 10 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!  07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature.  The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt ( talk ) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good.  St Anselm ( talk ) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement?  -- JFHutson ( talk ) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  It looks like this might close as No consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 24 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
Out of the Dust (band): Does not pass WP:BAND under any criterion.  Does not pass GNG either.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms and CCM (magazine) already referenced in the article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources .  This  piece is clearly significant coverage here .  Havent done a full search yet, imv, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For WP:BAND and for GNG, coverage must be multiple.  Have you found anything beyond that Cross Rhythms coverage?  I didn't.  (I don't think the CCM review counts as it is not clearly independent nor significant).  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree the CCM source isn't great, other coverage here , here , and here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:25, 8 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!  18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  A analysis of sources brought into this discussion by Atlantic306 would be helpful in determining whether or not this band passes GNG.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:06, 20 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: no consensus
Wendy Gaynor: Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Pepper Beast (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not found online reviews of her book, and if there's only a single book there would not be notability under WP:AUTHOR.  There might be notability as a businesswoman, however, or for the business?  Ebscosearch finds two reviews of her baking business: Sweet Charity.  By: Stein, Victoria, O, The Oprah Magazine , 15313247, Sep2003, Vol.  4, Issue 9 & The Sweet Spot.  By: Reynolds, Jonathan.  New York Times Magazine .  10/27/2002, Vol.  152 Issue 52284, p81.  2p.  Proquest also finds another three reviews: CHASING SWEET DREAMS Entrepreneurs find success with hard work and delicious desserts: Black, Rosemary.  , New York Daily News ; New York, N.Y..  14 Apr 2002: 17.  & Cookies, Cookies, Everywhere, And Plenty of Chips to Eat.  Fabricant, Florence.  New York Times , New York, N.Y..  27 June 2001: 2.  & EATS: Sax, Irene.  New York Daily News ; New York, N.Y..  07 July 2001: 22.  There are also four independent sources for this business already in the article, though I think some of these overlap the above.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Article is no longer orphaned; I connected two links to this article.  Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 01:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Okay, so now that the article is no longer orphaned, what do you want to happen to it and why?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - enough coverage in RS such as the NYT to suggest notability for inclusion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:30, 20 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!  21:20, 24 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: no consensus
Azhar Mashwani: This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 ( talk · contribs ) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS.  Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N.  Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 11:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP .  This , this , this , this , this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media.  If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue?  -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So as I mentioned in my nom.  above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N.  Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention.  However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP?  Likely not.  Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Creation by SPA is another issue.  You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA.  Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD.  Excuse me if I missed somewhere.  Fair is fair.  So we should come to the rational AfD discussion.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention.  According to our policy , individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 05:58, 16 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: no consensus
East Lancashire Primary Care Trust: LibStar ( talk ) 10:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Medicine ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not at all notable.  Most search results are for "East Lancashire Hospitals".  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Being defunct is not the same as not notable.  Once notable, always notable.  A health organization such as this one is likely to be a major employer in its area of operation and to generate a certain amount of media coverage, both when it starts something new and when it makes a mistake.  (We can have a long discussion elsewhere about how the HNS doesn't listen to whistle-blowers.)  I will try to add some references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We really need some evaluation of expansion of article since nomination and addition of sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:45, 18 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: no consensus
The Myth (band): Being a support act and esp. for tribute bands does not establish notability per WP:BAND .  Previous AfD nomination was closed due to prior vandalism on the page.  InDimensional ( talk ) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  InDimensional ( talk ) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Their bland name makes searching tough, but a search for individual members leads to a few minor newspaper articles in their country: [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] .  Those have some basic info but are not very descriptive about the band's entire history.  There may be enough for a stub article here, per a generous reading of the coverage requirements in WP:NBAND .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:07, 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
Jong-su Kim: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 31 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
IConji: Remsense 诉 11:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  09:04, 7 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!  06:56, 14 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: no consensus
Alex Bretow: Not able to find any sort of WP:SIGCOV .  The creator of this article recently created Mammoth Pictures which was co-founded by the subject and whose notability is questionable too.  Hitro talk 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and United States of America .  Hitro talk 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete the draft has been already declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alex_Bretow .  BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added some content and sources and reviewed existing sources.  There is consistent coverage of the individual and his films, beginning with his student films being shown at Cannes two years in a row.  This coverage is in both industry publications and newspapers.  There are articles about him, not just film reviews, which I believe meets the requirement for sig coverage.  In addition, he was selected by Forbes as an up-and-coming entrepreneur.  Rublamb ( talk ) 14:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just noting that this article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think enough work has been done on it by other editors that it isn't eligible for CSD G5.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please review additions made since the article's nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Can't really find any issues with article.  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 16:36, 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: no consensus
Olusola Oyebade: Also ref bombed with citations that are either pass mentioned like this https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/27/fashion.pressandpublishing here Pass no message with unreliable sources like this, And inaccessible source like this Not referring to the subject like this Sources Focusing on the Fashions Finest Africa show like this .  Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 17:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close : this appears to be a nearly-identical nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olusola Oyebade from the same nominator, opened near-concurrently, but with lousier formatting.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 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: no consensus
Watsco: Nothing but routine business coverage seems to show up.  Valereee ( talk ) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America .  Valereee ( talk ) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  This earlier version was significantly longer.  Most companies traded on a major stock exchange are likely to be notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:43, 9 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 ) 23:39, 16 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