hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I: Mccapra ( talk ) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria .  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Royalty and nobility .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 08:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Monarch for an ancient town.  Not opposed to a redirect to an Aseyin of Iseyin article, but unfortunately that does not exist.  There were indeed controversy regarding his installment after the death of the previous monarch, but all that has been laid to rest.  Never really a "fraudster", more like multiple families using the media to protect their interest.  HandsomeBoy ( talk ) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Based on my works on monarchs from Nigeria, I find this to be a slim WP:GNG pass, especially from WP:BEFORE .  Also, looking at WP:MONARCH .  I have improved it to an extent too.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:29, 14 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
Badr Brigade in the Jordanian Army: RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Jordan ,  and Palestine .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Certainly exists (or existed).  I've added a reference.  And brigades are clearly notable.  Rename to Badr Brigade (Jordan) .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:31, 10 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!  06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - now notable thanks to Necrothesp 's reference.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:19, 26 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
Florian Marciniak: There is also not a lot of reliable information available online.  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 03:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scouting and Poland .  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 03:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG .  See the pl article for sources, including a full biography .  Jfire ( talk ) 04:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable per the existence of a complete biography of Florian Marciniak and other refs in the Dutch, German, and Polish Wikipedia articles.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the reasons given above. Mccapra ( talk ) 05:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Szare Szeregi is very important WW2 organisation, so is its commander. Marcelus ( talk ) 10:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A WP:BEFORE check would have turned up multiple references and the much longer articles on other Wikipedias. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps those of you who know more about this topic that I do, could actually add the sources.  Then this discussion can be closed.  Bduke ( talk ) 03:56, 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
Inside Philanthropy: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Finance , Companies , Websites ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's extremely widely cited and well respected for accurate and unbiased news about the charitable sector.  As DGG said in the previous AFD six years ago, "major resource in its field. It is difficult to use the GNG for periodicals or serious websites."  And as Arxiloxos said, "As its steady citation by other reliable sources shows, this has become a significant source for the charitable sector, and thus passes criteria #3, #4 and #5 of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals ." -- Softlavender ( talk ) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If DGG thought it was notable, that's good enough for me.  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 13:12, 13 November 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
My Friend Rabbit: tagged unsourced since july.  ltb d l ( talk ) 08:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation .  ltb d l ( talk ) 08:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Caldecott Medal makes it meet WP:NBOOK .  One wonders if any WP:BEFORE was attempted.  Lady of Shalott 13:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per the article lead, "The illustrations in the book earned Rohmann the Caldecott Medal in 2003."  Therefore it passes WP:NBOOK point 2 (winning a major literary award).  CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 14:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The award makes it notable (but it's not one I'm familiar with, so I could understand perhaps why the nom was made.).  This in Common Sense Media [20] also helps notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Won a major children's literature award and had a TV series inspired by it.  A miserable WP:BEFORE failure.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm going to assume that ltbdl is unfamiliar with the Caldecott Medal.  Essentially this is the children's literature equivalent of winning the Academy Award for Best Film.  It's THE award as far as American children's literature goes.  It's granted by the American Library Association, which is one of the biggest authorities on library science in the United States.  They also of course cover literature and are influential in that sphere as well.  There's really not a bigger or more influential award that a kid's book could really win as far as US specific awards go.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If it won a major award and has a televison show based off of it, it's most likely notable enough.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOmniDex ( talk • contribs ) 02:35, 19 November 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
Dunajec Nowy Sącz: No sources but one external link.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football ,  and Poland .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [7] , [8] , and [9] ,  among many more Polish sources.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above.   Sufficient sources to support an article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 08:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:02, 27 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
Bradford Gowen: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Profile here in the NY Times [20] and mentions the award/prize won in 1978.  I'd say he's notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also appears to be featured in this book, but Gbooks blocks it due to copyright reasons in my country [21] Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Oaktree; a profile in one of the US's largest newspapers is pretty damning to me.  Queen of Hearts ( talk ) 00:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep.  The article is in my opinion poorly written and very poorly cited.  But the subject seems notable for their performance career.  Needs a serious rewrite, though.  Qflib ( talk ) 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- solo recital features in the NYTimes is generally enough for classical music features (it also strongly suggests that there would have been much other coverage in the late 1970s in newspapers and magazines that don't have an easily searchable digital archive).  Notability at one point in life is notability over the rest of the subject's life.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:44, 14 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
International Student Exchange, Ontario: Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Canada .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note – Grand'mere Eugene has had much better luck finding adequate substantial coverage than I have and the article no longer looks like [47] .  I'm fine with withdrawing the nomination.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 11:25, 19 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
Nami Kurokawa: Of the two sources listed here, the subject is only mentioned once as part of a list.  On the Japanese Wiki article, the sources appear to be mostly agency-written profiles.  After looking on the internet, I found no reliable sources in English.  After a look through available online Japanese-language sources, most sources appear to be either user generated, basic press releases, or, again, basic, agency-supplied profiles.  (An editor fluent in Japanese might want to double there's nothing else).  Most of the works she is listed as acting in redirect to manga, or do not seem to mention her character.  GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:NACTOR #1 for voicing major characters Leica Crusade in Demonbane , Flora Koiwai in Nanatsuiro Drops , Sayaka Hozumi in Yoake Mae yori Ruriiro na , and Takako Kakuzawa in Gakuen Utopia Manabi Straight!  , and has a partial pass of WP:NMUSIC #10 for being one of three singers of an ending song for the Koihime Musō anime.  ミラP @ Miraclepine 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Miraclepine who has already substantially improved the article, which had almost no content at the time of the nomination.  — Xezbeth ( talk ) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep please do not delete the article okay Lovemuhcko ( talk ) 03:18, 2 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
Mindful Education: Kuchi Kopi ( talk ) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  As I said in my comment on the AfD for The Answer (Steven Universe) and the AfD for Cry for Help (Steven Universe) , the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is!  Please withdraw this incorrect AfD.  This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban.  It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned.  Unless you're accusing

Discussion outcome: keep
Killing of Dexter Reed: Magnolia677 ( talk ) 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - WP:NOTNEWS .  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", per WP:NOTNEWS .  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Police ,  and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A brief burst of news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability.  Wikipedia is not a database of murders or other news stories.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The surge of coverage occurred weeks after the event.  There are sources that analyse the event as well.  And there are still sources published as recently as 2 hours ago , definitely sustained coverage.  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Red pilled media has been all over this because the left has been asking the same stupid question: "how can police justify nearly 100 shots, when all Reed did was empty his clip at a cop first?"  Both sides will milk this for a long time.  ( Grady Judd said, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more".)  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 23:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of sources.  Would meet WP:GNG .  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be widely reported.  Inexpiable ( talk ) 15:47, 21 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!  21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WE&H; sources are still coming in.  Queen of ♡ | speak 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : many reliable sources and significant in-depth coverage FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 19:18, 28 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
The Impossible Quiz: - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , given the lack of reason to delete.  The article cites in-depth RS reviews ( Wired , Rock Paper Shotgun , Engadget , Polygon ).  The deletion justification is seemingly that the title was at one point salted, then unsalted in 2011.  It's not particularly rare for things that weren't judged notable many years ago to have crossed that line since.  Vaticidal prophet 14:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game meets GNG and there is no valid deletion rationale.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above and my response on the talk page.  In addition, I also found a MacWorld review of the quiz that I didn't add to the article yet.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  What's the reason for the nomination?  SWinxy ( talk ) 19:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep No rationale given for deletion; article satisfies GNG criteria anyway.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:17, 25 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
Gerard Hartmann: The only WP:RS I found are the two listed in the article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/2822341.stm and https://web.archive.org/web/20101006083637/http://www.independent.ie/sport/hurling/shefflin-recovery-absurd-2322902.html ), each of which gives him only a passing mention.   That's a long way from WP:SIGCOV .  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs ) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland .  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs ) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: definitely not notable in his own right just for having worked on a few known athletes.  ww2censor ( talk ) 12:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ho-hum, well just about, if BHG is happy that's ok with me.  Well done Guliolopez though the sources still mostly focus on his athletes.  I'm out.  ww2censor ( talk ) 10:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  My own WP:BEFORE has returned a number of news articles ( Reuters , Irish Independent , Irish Times , Irish Examiner , etc) which deal with cover the subject as a primary topic.  And in some biographical depth.  I have added some of these to the article .  To my own read, there is more here than passing mentions and notability-by-association....  Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn .  The sources found by @ Guliolopez seem to me to comfortably meet GNG.  Thanks,  Guliolopez.  @ ww2censor , what do you make of the new sources?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs ) 08:23, 19 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
Traders Point Christian Church: Only one source is independent and significant.  User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Indiana .  User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS...  The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church.  Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003 ), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly .  The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes.  Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Dclemen1971,  imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the two above, but I'd like to see a lot more about the church's history than 'it started in 1834...oh it's a megachurch now' and its history needs to be seriously filled in.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:44, 19 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