hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Açelya Topaloğlu: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Dance , Television ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think it passes "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances", has lead roles in some notable shows, film and stage shows.  Has some sustained coverage as well.  [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Tehonk ( talk ) 03:22, 27 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!  23:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An article about a Turkish actress.  From the sources, I can get WP:THREE plus the appearances in multiple films (just that they may have been licenced under Turkey and their language —which I also don't understand).  At easiest, two awards and well written BLP.  For now, I can say it's well sources and meets WP:NACTRESS !   All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of sources for this.  Desertarun ( talk ) 08:35, 17 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
TestFreaks: Other than Mashable's article, there is no coverage about this topic.  Plus, there is no article about it in Swedish Wikipedia.  US-Verified ( talk ) 18:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites ,  and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A quick look in a Swedish newspaper archives gives far more than what seems to be available online.  There's a two-page article in Dagens Industri , "Prylfantasten redo för nästa steg" (18 May 2007), from the launch of the company, and a shorter piece in Svenska Dagbladet , "Freaks får ny sajt" (24 April 2007), some relevant content in "Come back!" in Veckans Affärer (23 May 2007), "Testsajt söker kvinnor" in Dagens Nyheter (5 September 2008).  Some of these are partly interviews, but I think it points towards notability.  National Swedish media considered this a fairly big thing in the later 00s, it seems.  / Julle ( talk ) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added more refs to the article.  / Julle ( talk ) 10:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I trust your judgement.  Happy to withdraw it.  US-Verified ( talk ) 23:45, 24 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
LooLa Adventure Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage.  Uhooep ( talk ) 09:02, 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) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is supported by a number of reliable, independent, in-depth discussion of the subject.  Clearly notable.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable resort. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Blofeld and Aymath JarrahTree 01:36, 22 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
Mitchell Amundsen: Seems non-notable.  DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Fairly meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" listed as one of the Cinematrographers to Watch by Variety ( https://variety.com/2008/scene/markets-festivals/mitch-amundsen-1117994914/ ) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 14 August 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!  06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Mushy Yank.  Keep per WP:CREATIVE .3.  This subject has director of photography (i.e cinematographer) credits on several films which would qualify for the critera (eg.  The Country Bears , Transporter 2 , Transformers (film) , etc).  The director of photography is an important creative credit on a film.  — siro χ o 06:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy Yank.  Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 24 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
Imperial Hotel (California): There are a few review articles I've found, but these seem to me to read like advertorial (and/or using uncited material from en.wiki) JMWt ( talk ) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Looks OK to me.  Pinging article's creator Missvain .  Not sure what nominator means by "guff", but perhaps article creator can add enough to save this.  — Maile ( talk ) 16:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article has plenty of sources, including some noteworthy travel guides, and a bit of searching also turned up a recent in-depth profile in a Bay Area lifestyle publication.  It's also been a hotel since the 19th century, which is a lot longer than the average B&B (in North America at least).  There's some fluff in the article that should be trimmed, but AfD isn't cleanup.  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's a historic building comparable to other historic buildings listed at Category:Bed_and_breakfasts_in_California .  If it was a newer building then obviously no. 5Q5 | ✉ 10:45, 22 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
Sadanandan Rangorath: Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , India ,  and Kerala .  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:12, 8 August 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!  17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails WP:GNG .  Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"?  "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"?  "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"?  His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Considering the references; seems to marginally pass the criteria! Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree with Mushy Yank on WP:NCREATIVE ; at least 1 of those questions listed by The Gnome could be answered with "Yes" since the work has its own article on Wikipedia, demonstrating notability for the purposes here.  There also seems to be some negative press https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/aashiq-abu-sidharth-bharathan-warns-film-aspirants-stay-away-lucsam-sadanandan/ , https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/salt-n-pepper-producer-lucsam-sadanandan-rangorath-accused-of-cheating-rs-4-lakhs/ regarding the subject which could be added to the article.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:19, 30 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
HijackThis: No evidence of notability.  Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works.  * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Keep.  Previous discussions : 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep) Related discussions : 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis ) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT) Logs : 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:19, 5 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!  07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] .  — Matrix(!) { user - talk?  - useless contributions } 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above.  Software with historical notability.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:46, 15 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
1912 Morris Harvey football team: Playing Notre Dame doesn't grant a team its own season article.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and West Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Playing Notre Dame doesn't make it non-notable, either.   This article, admittedly a stub, seems to be part of a series of articles about independent colleges' football seasons in 1912.   Some articles in the series are obviously better-documented than others, but that doesn't mean that the smaller or lesser-known schools' seasons are non-notable.   There are three independent, reliable sources, and presumably others could be found in newspapers that aren't available online.   And given the subject—college football seasons—I'm reasonably sure that readers do want this information to be part of the encyclopedia.   I see fifty page views over the last ninety days preceding this nomination (sixty-two now), and while that's not a lot, it's more than many "kept" articles about obscure, but technically notable topics get.   This nomination seems more like a "podunk colleges aren't notable" argument to me.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Though not the strongest pass, there seems to be some decent coverage of this season on Newspapers.com , including articles (albeit brief) from unrelated states covering some of their games, which seems to show prominence.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on sources found Lightburst ( talk ) 18:06, 18 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
Karl Filiga: Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Australia ,  and New Zealand .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier.  Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable.  Article could probably be expanded.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:11, 23 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!  06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Lots of dead links in the sources which needs to be fixed, but they do establish WP:SPORTSCRIT .  His name is even in the headline of one of the ones that still works.  Article needs a cleanup and an update.  David Palmer aka cloventt ( talk ) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : suggest that his failure at NRL is actually a notable event, which meets significant coverage threshold.  Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 02:56, 2 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
Swords (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.  Swords (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of swords .  Swords (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of swords is (it says) about Tarot cards.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A) AFD really isn't "articles for discussion" and shouldn't be used for a merge proposal.   B) per Uncle G they do appear different.   C) I don't see a good reason why these 4 weren't done as a bundle--I find it unlikely that the arguments at each will be different.   Would you mind closing these four and giving us one bundled proposal (or take it to the talk pages).  Hobit ( talk ) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge .  These are two distinct topics.  Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes.  So Swords (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas suit of swords is purely about cartomantic cards.  They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover.  The same is true of cups and goblets, batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc.  We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do.  I agree the naming needs sorting out because the suit is called "swords" by both card players and occultists.  So we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit).  In the other 3 cases, there are different names that can be used to distinguish them.  HTH.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 17:01, 14 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
Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge: Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 03:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Unsourced, yes, but sources exist for it.  Here are some sources that I believe would qualify notability: [22] [23] [24] .  Part of the problem seems to be the account TCWRCD ( t c ) , which edited the article a few times years ago and seems to be owned by the organization.  However, I don't think it should be deleted considering the notability of the subject.  StartOkayStop ( talk ) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions .  Kpg jhp jm 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seems to be a lot of secondary coverage of this subject over many years.  Here are some more sources in addition to the ones above, [25] [26] [27] .  Plenty more.  Note also that despite the TCWRCD account's involvement, the article as it stands is not overly promotional, and just need a minor npov pass (along with the need for verification) — siro χ o 05:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources cited above have WP:SIGCOV of the wildlife refuge and establish notability.  The article can be copyedited to fix any neutrality issues.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:53, 26 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
The Vipers: Not much to them with their brief existence.  GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland .  GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  Not a notable band.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 12:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS referencing them, nothing in newspapers.com, proquest, or newspaperarchive.com for anything thats plausibly them although it might have been buried by other groups with the same name and rugby teams.  Shaws username .  talk .  13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The new sources are good and meet notability.  Clearly I just failed miserably when I looked for sources, ResonantDistortion and Guliolopez have done a really good job adding sources.  Shaws username .  talk .  18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient WP:V sourcing has been added to the article since AfD to meet WP:NBAND .   This includes WP:NBAND #12 featured significantly on a national radio station, and WP:NBAND #1, with a reliable independent source from Hot Press stating "We wrote about The Vipers regularly in Hot Press" even if these articles are not all available online due to it being >40 years ago.  Also - The Vipers headlined a show above a little known band called U2 - how is that not notable?  Resonant Dis tor tion 18:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In my own WP:BEFORE I found and, together with ResonantDistortion have added, a number of sources which would appear to contribute to a WP:GNG claim.  While the subject band did not appear to have chart success, to the extent that "single or album on any country's national music chart" or "record certified gold or higher" of WP:NBAND are not met, there does appear to be enough coverage to warrant retention on SIGCOV grounds.  Certainly the coverage in music journalism sources (like Hot Press ) and general news sources (like the Irish Independent ) are contributory.  In all honesty, some of the coverage is somewhat "passing" in nature, and I was therefore minded to frame my recommendation as a weak keep .  I can't support outright deletion however...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 18:41, 24 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