hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
KRLB-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Washington .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 06:06, 20 April 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, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:58, 27 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
Mupen64Plus : For the sources in the article: #3 is one paragraph in a list #8 is one paragraph sourced to a forum post #9 does not mention the software #10 mentions the software once 10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once.  QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software .  QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Found an article in Win Magazine , and a paragraph in CD-Action .  Combining that with the Digital Trends mention I think it weakly passes GNG.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h.  I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage.  Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count.  CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article.  Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mika1h : I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic : [17] , [18] , also a list entry from Pocket Gamer : [19] .  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:22, 27 March 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 ) 01:57, 4 April 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, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:00, 11 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
IWar : As the article is about a term used by NATO, there is little potential for expansion, unless it is transformed into an article about " Internet warfare " to cover a broader topic in general.  – Vipz ( talk ) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  – Vipz ( talk ) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The term is, as you say, used by NATO – and for that reason is likely to gain wider use for what is a recent real-world phenomenon (starting 2008), though a slightly older concept; you may recall published concerns that US power facilities were at risk of such attacks, and therefore were being hardened against them.  Likewise, after the 2016 US election, there was discussion of reprisals against Russia for its interference, which ended up being sanctions but might have included the US targeting Russian computer systems.  That too might have been iWar, depending on the nature of the systems and attacks.  So the topic could become of greater practical (less abstract) public concern at any time.  – .  Raven .  talk 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added the two books you mention to the "Further reading" list, using 'cite book' templates, so that anyone who wants to cite them can cut-and-paste those into their refs.  The original 2015 publication of "The Rise of iWar" still has no Google Books preview, but this 2018 Skyhorse reprint has some limited preview.  – .  Raven .  talk 10:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 07:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The fact that books published by the US War College & S&S on the topic exist seems to show some level of notability but I do think that a larger article on internet warfare incorporating this one might be more sensible.  DCsansei ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Perplexing.  I would have thought Internet war would have existed, but it doesn't.   iWar is in the title of two books, but beyond those books, it really hasn't caught on as a "term" from my searches.   The broader topic is undoubtedly notable and NATO seems to have given birth to "iWar", so perhaps we hold this for now in the expectation that will be a redirect to Internet war in the future (unless the term "iWar" catches on in the meantime).  Although I was confused as to whether the "i" was for " Internet war " or Information war ?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:17, 6 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: no consensus
Bastien Scimone : I found plenty of trivial mentions, both in English ( The Yorkshire Post , Sky Sports , Warrington Guardian ) and French ( Le Petit Journal , L'Indépendant , La Dépêche ), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and France .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - French international rugby league footballer who has played as a professional in the Super League for the Catalans Dragons on a number of occasions.  Additionally as per the cited sources has played as a professional for Toulouse Olympique and at international level for France B, as well as the full national side.  Fleets ( talk ) 14:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you got any WP:SIGCOV ?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:14, 11 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!  22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Move to draft : Young Catalans player, will likely have more written about him in the future.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:38, 22 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!  23:00, 23 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
Zamil Steel : The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent.  No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.  Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Company actually seems notable to me, even though the article is terrible.  This already can help for an introduction, and a section on their practices.  Here is a case study, whose facts we can assume to be reliable.  This is obviously not acceptable, yet its promotional claims indicate that the company is likely notable.  Drmies ( talk ) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It would be worth considering the present article about this subsidiary company in the wider context of articles on the parent company Zamil Industrial (created around the same time by the same editor) and Zamil Group Holding (created more recently).  Do each have sufficient specific notability to justify multiple article here?  AllyD ( talk ) 07:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:04, 16 June 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, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 20:18, 23 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: no consensus
The Gifted Students' School (Iraq) : Can't find anything online.  Everything here is just someone's opinion.  Nswix ( talk ) 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Iraq .  Nswix ( talk ) 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete - this is clearly a for-profit education company and per NSCHOOL , it would need to meet NCORP , which it doesn't and most likely can't.  It's either the work of a proud student who was unaware of NOTFACEBOOK , or the company itself.  In either case, it's blatantly PROMO .  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to be a government school network, so probably not for-profit.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but needs clean up.  I believe more sources probably exist though, for example https://www.iraqiwomensleague.com/news_view_5102.html and https://baghdadtoday.news/228330-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF.html - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 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: no consensus
Thalattu (TV series) : Karnataka ( talk ) 22:05, 11 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!  23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to have noteworthy coverage in both English ( [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] ) and Tamil, judging by the corresponding Tamil article.  - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:16, 25 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: no consensus
Thala (film) : Sources in article are promos, mentions, listings, etc. ; nothing that meets WP:IS , WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV .  BEFORE showed nothing.  Article also exists at Draft:Thala (film) , was rejected at AfC, [16] and then created in mainspace.  Author has had multiple articles rejected at AfC, only to be created directly in mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : production that has received coverage ( https://www.newindianexpress.com/good-news/2022/may/29/teen-kerala-film-awards-winner-helps-colony-move-further-away-from-infamous-past-2459207.html , https://m.timesofindia.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/this-young-award-winner-makes-her-family-proud/articleshow/91863709.cms or similar articles, that can be said significant considering the film's genre), various awards and screenings that are verifiable. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of the above is SIGCOV about the film.  // Timothy :: talk 19:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned, insufficiently clearly, apparently, that I found that, considering it is a child actors film, this type of coverage of the film's production is significant in my view; the awards and screenings also are.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godjo J — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue ( talk • contribs ) Comment : Author pblocked at ANI for disruptive editing.  [17] // Timothy :: talk 16:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Award winning film, passes WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 00:06, 1 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
Nathalia Novaes : Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and Fashion .  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:26, 30 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!  05:15, 6 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!  23:17, 12 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
Temoc : I think this does deserve some discussion because there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc.  Okmrman ( talk ) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as the person who first redirected the article.  The fact that there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc means that there are a lot of mascot pages that ought to be deleted for failing WP:GNG .  Excluding press releases from UTD and articles from its student newspapers, the best references I could find were insignificant coverage from The Straits Times and the Chronical of Higher Education Mach61 22:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Texas-Dallas Comets , specifically Mach61 23:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Mach61 00:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Mach61 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: If this was changed to a Redirect, what would the target article be?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment perhaps the article could be broadened to be about "student life" in general?   A lot of the article is about topics only tangentially related to the athletic mascot.  Texas–Dallas Comets is the only plausible merge (or redirect) target I see, none of this material needs to be in the main university article.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looking for more opinions.  We have a possible Redirect target to be Texas–Dallas Comets but not much consensus for it.  I almost feel like this could be closed procedurally as the nominator was indfinitely blocked for their single-minded deletion campaign in AFDLand.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:05, 25 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
Tistory : The two sources which aren't dead links in the article are unfamiliar to me and have not been evaluated for WP:RSP .   Searching news turned up a lot of pages with content from Tistory, but nothing that could establish notability.   There may be foreign-language sources that I was unable to access.  ~ T P W 14:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 14:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and South Korea .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:00, 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!  01:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I ran IAbot and Citation Bot to fix the references, and now they seem fine, especially Information Week .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:42, 28 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!  01:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Hoping to get some new eyes evaluating this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Korean Wikipedia's article on the subject may have a bit more information.  -- œ ™ 07:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While I am basing this on Google Translate, the ko.wiki article seems to be little more than a feature list and launch history, lacking evidence to demonstrate notability.  AllyD ( talk ) 18:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Daum Communications .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:00, 15 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