hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Aldor : Notability contested for a long time with no sign of notability likely to appear for defunct research project Ysangkok ( talk ) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Ysangkok ( talk ) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search for "Aldor" programming showed a number of books that have sections describing Aldor; I added three of them as general references to the article.  GScholar, with hundreds of hits, shows that there are likely more independent sources.  Given these, there are enough in depth, independent RS that this topic passes WP:GNG .  Using these sources, a reasonable article could be developed.  Hence keep.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 11:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify and improve . The page doesn't look encyclopedic and the sources are not so clear. I suggest to draftify the article and then add more sources and rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic format and then subit for review. -- Onetimememorial ( talk ) 20:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article needs development but that is unlikely to happen in draft space.  WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added by Mark Viking.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the newly added references would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mark Viking.  Just running through the three sources added to the article: [51] is a paper published in academic conference proceedings containing 9 lines (> 100 words) about the language as such and another 9 lines (> 100 words) about the Aldor compiler.  [52] is a dedicated paper of several thousand words with extensive detail on Aldor by Erik Poll and Simon Thompson; [53] is another such paper by Thompson.  (AFAICT authors Poll and Thompson, although they have both written extensively on Aldor, are not in any meaningful sense affiliated with it; here is a presentation by Poll explaining Aldor's history.)  I think we're comfortably in GNG territory here; and if not, there's a lot more where these came from.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:50, 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
Bandhu Singh : WP:ONEEVENT is applicable.  Only source, used in article also have passing reference and nothing more about his biography is available in secondary sources.  Hence it fails WP:GNG .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This article needs some love, but subject seems to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG.  Here's some reliable sigcov [61] .  Here's a book with some coverage [62] .  These together may help [63] [64] .  There may also be a language divide here, these sources may not be reliable but point us in a direction: [65] [66] — siro χ o 04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sourcing provided by Siroxo - it's a bit light but it suggests a proper article can be written.  SportingFlyer T · C 09:42, 26 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
Reality shifting : While the article mentions the popularity of reality shifting on social media platforms, such as TikTok and YouTube, it fails to establish a solid foundation based on credible research or empirical evidence.  Wikipedia's guidelines require that articles provide reliable sources to support their claims and assertions.  In the case of reality shifting, there is a lack of scientific studies or academic research supporting its validity.  The article references the involvement of the CIA in studying Robert Monroe's research on altered states of consciousness, but it fails to demonstrate any direct link between this research and the practice of reality shifting as described.  IceStar12 ( talk ) 23:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable sources, The Washington Post , The Michigan Daily & Cosmopolitan .  Pseudoscientific topics can still be notable.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources from User:SailingInABathTub .  All Wikipedia's guidelines require is that the reliable sources cover the subject.  They don't have to support it.  However, I do believe that the article should better clarify the pseudoscientific aspect of this.  I'll take a go at it when I get the time.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source I found is this: Reality shifting: psychological features of an emergent online daydreaming culture - PMC (nih.gov) , which was on the first draft of the article, but seems to have been removed for some reason ARandomName123 ( talk ) 00:44, 19 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
Amanda Nylander : Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  PROD removed without explanation.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related page: Isabelle Nylander ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and Sweden .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both subjects seem to meet the GNG with the Skate Today article already in the article, which provides WP:SIGCOV , along with native language sources such as [ [1] ].  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to what Let'srun has pointed out above, I've expanded the article a little bit, building on Swedish news sources.  / Julle ( talk ) 19:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Julles additions AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Julle ( talk )'s expansion and additions of news sources.  Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Julle ( talk )'s expansion and good work to update the article.  Also per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:05, 4 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
Saemaul Sports Hall : BEFORE found listings and name mentions in mill news, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk 06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Sports , Olympics ,  and South Korea .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but the article needs to be rescoped.  The Eng article fails to mention it, but I think the article title is only the first in a series of changes the building went under.  It was sold to KBS, then used as a sports building under various names, remodeled, and has since 2015 gone by the name "KBS Arena Hall" (different from KBS Hall ), and is now a concert hall.  [13] [14] [15] [16] toobigtokale ( talk ) 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the Korean article has 2 good Korean language sources that explain the renovation/updated use in 2015: [17] , [18] .  I imagine more may exist in Korean language too.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion on the sources presented in this discussion in light of WP:SIGCOV would be helpful in attaining a consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, all of the sources I linked previously are substantial discussions of the subject of the article.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 10:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notability is whether there are sources, not about the state of the article - my sense is the sources presented here show notability.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:35, 3 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
Jonathan Jacoby : Sources are passing mentions .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] perhaps a partial merge into the NIF article would be an appropriate remedy?  FortunateSons ( talk ) 12:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This [33] (you need ProQuest access) from The Forward in 2000 should be good for a WP:GNG -point.  These [34] [35] are better than passing mention.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 00:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per [36] [37] [38] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have removed a number of references which were passing mentions and have added other references which demonstrate the subject's notability.  Misha Wolf ( talk ) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Misha Wolf.  The sourcing is now sufficient to pass WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:30, 28 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
Eliot Halverson : PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Colombia ,  and Minnesota .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per failing WP:NSKATE .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources include three newspapers of record, meets WP:GNG even if not WP:NSKATE .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations.  Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject easily meets the WP:GNG with sources already in the article such as #2 and #4, in addition to [ [60] ].  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:58, 11 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
Island Records discography : -- wooden superman 13:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NLIST.  Yes, as is, the article makes no claim of significance for the topic, but it easily could, e.g [6] .  Mosaic Records discography is a good example of what an improved version of this article could look like.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 ( talk • contribs ) 14:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The label is evidently extremely notable but is a list of its records?  It might be difficult to assert a specific source focuses on the discography as a group and not on the label as a whole.  But for example, these sources could attest the list is notable as such: [7] , [8] .  And anyway, the label is so notable that a dedicated page about the discography could easily be considered a detailed article created to make navigation easier in the main article. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d argue there’s a working consensus that discographies of notable labels can be split out if they’re too large to stay as a section.  Mach61 ( talk ) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Important label, particularly in its early days, and a discography that has received coverage in several sources.  -- Michig ( talk ) 10:12, 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: keep
Kevin McNeany : Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability, for example: New Statesman profile , Manchester Evening News Founder's goodbye to Nord Anglia , City Wire Education's first multi-millionaire stacks up more Nord Anglia and The Observer The teacher who made £15m out of schools Piecesofuk ( talk ) 15:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The New Statesman profile is no longer on their web page, but there are 3 other articles there.  The profile (located through EBSCO) is quite long and detailed.  Between those and the Guardian piece, it meets GNG.  Lamona ( talk ) 21:27, 1 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
Omar Agrebi : A user posted sources to the talk page.  However, these, and others, are no more than routine coverage.  Let me know if there is some volleyball-specific consensus that I am unaware of.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 07:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sports .  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 17:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 08:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  First, the rule: WP:NBASIC reminds us that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.  I would note at the outset that the guideline does not provide for significant coverage to be ignored merely because it is "routine".  (I would say that glancing mentions in match reports are both routine and excludable -- but excludable because the brief and uninformative mention does not reach the sigcov threshold, not because of routineness alone.)  I know nothing of Tunisian media or volleyball so I am in no place to evaluate any other properties of these sources, but the links posted to Talk ( [26] , [27] ), which both relate to Agrebi's transfer to Nancy, are quite brief but appear to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of addressing the article subject directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Here is another on the same lines with a mention of a seemingly nontrivial distinction (best net midfielder at Mediterranean Games); here is a considerably longer piece (935 words). All are dedicated entirely to the article subject; all deal with his career rather than with incidental occurrences in individual games or the like. Based on this, unless there are some underlying problems with all of these sources, I would consider NBASIC to be met. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:59, 18 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
The River Flows Eastwards : I don't speak the relevant languages/dialects but I'm not seeing much that would count towards notability in AfD on en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is a Douban listing page for this "一江春水向東流" production but zh.wiki doesn't have an equivalent article.  A redirect to The Spring River Flows East where this TV adaptation is mentioned could serve as an alternative to deletion ?  AllyD ( talk ) 11:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets GNG.  Here are some sources: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] .  Here are sources with episode-by-episode plot summaries, which may also be useful for expanding the article: episodes 1-5 , episodes 6-10 , episodes 11-15 , episodes 16-20 , episodes 21-25 , episodes 26-30 .  More sources are available online, although searching is a bit tricky because of the 1947 film whose name is the same in Chinese.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources .  Thank you, Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ), for your excellent and comprehensive research.  The first two sources are from Youth Daily and Beijing Star Daily .  The sources provide extensive coverage about The River Flows Eastwards , which passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline .  Cunard ( talk ) 07:25, 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
The Hip Abduction : Most sources available appears to be routine coverage.  Two previous AfDs however no more recent sourcing appears to be out there.  Mdann52 ( talk ) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida .  Mdann52 ( talk ) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Since the last AfD they finally achieved a few feature articles in their local news media, currently at footnotes #1 and #3.  They might just barely meet the minimum requirements for reliable coverage at WP:NBAND , though I will not dispute anyone who questions whether those sources are significant .  The band's name is brilliant BTW.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I don't think those are "significant" hence the nomination (and I would argue those sources are routine, but that's open for debate I guess!) Mdann52 ( talk ) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as well as the feature articles mentioned above they also have an AllMusic staff written bio here although it is on the short side.  Haven't done a full search yet.  There is also the claim that they had a release chart on a specialist Billboard Regae chart.  Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've noticed many past users have tried to add this article to Wikipedia several times, and it definitely has enough sources to prove its notability.  I've seen articles on the site with far less sources that are significant enough to keep.  BeatBro ( talk ) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The two articles mentioned by Doomsdayer [22] [23] show sigcov.  Footnote 5 [24] , although an interview, has a decently long intro.  I'd argue that these meet the GNG.  The other two footnotes don't count, as one is a show announcement and the other is way too short.  The News Herald source mentions that "The Hip Abduction has embarked on a national tour that began in early March."  Since that was 2020, I'm not sure how the tour ended up going, but it should meet item 4 of NBAND : Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of [...] a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.  Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 26 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