hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
The Damn Personals: Band member Anthony Rossomando is notable but has his own page.  Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably keep.  I only looked for reviews online (excluding Newspapers.com), but found published material of varying length: Ox-Fanzine [8] de:Visions [9] Punk Planet [10] (short) CMJ New Music [11] Boston Phoenix [12] Impact Press [13] (short) In Music We Trust 1 [14] (short) In Music We Trust 2 [15] (short) Allmusic biography (very short) - also mentioning blog, unreliable I'm also taking into consideration that this is what has survived on the Internet, from a time period where much has been wiped out.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The above sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:54, 4 July 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
Whitestone, Warwickshire: I propose either a deletion of the article, it merged into Nuneaton or Attleborough or it deleted altogether.  It doesn't seem to be like Hawkesbury Village proposal one as this place has no manor or early history.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 15:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm really sorry, I don't think this can be deleted, despite there not being much to write about it.  Per WP:GEOLAND , populated, legally-recognised places are presumed to be notable.  The briefest of Google searches reveals that Whitestone has a surgery with that name, a post-office with that name, is regarded as a safe place by the Coventry Telegraph referring to it by that name [13] and is the name of a ward within Nuneaton with a very worthy and respectable-looking councillor.  I would advocate removing all the OR content and reducing it to a stub including the geographical information, pending anyone finding anything useful that can be said about it based on sources, but since our North American colleagues would find it to be more than an uninhabited railway siding in Ohio, the article itself is a keep .  Elemimele ( talk ) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it’s a ward so probably passes WP:GEOLAND as well as being an OS settlement.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : despite there being a lot of WP:OR and a lack of references in the article the subject passes WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated settlement.  We can always remove any unsourced information that is unverifiable.  We can also add some of the sources mentioned by Elemimele.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I rm the unsourced material per V. There are enough database records (not sourced from Wikipedia) to show this exists, but the question is if this legally recognized place?  If it is legally recognized, it passes GEOLAND; if not it needs to pass GNG and it fails this.  I do not see sources showing this is a legally recognized place, unless sources appear showing it is, I ! v Delete .  Sources found, ! v Keep .  // Timothy :: talk 03:55, 19 April 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
Senki Senki Momotama: I may be missing something as I don't read Japanese, so taking to AfD for discussion.  Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; the article does not mention this, but it was published in English by Tokyopop under the title Momo Tama and based on that release, I found four reviews from sources listed at WP:ANIME/RS : Active Anime , Pop Culture Shock , The Fandom Post , Sequential Tart .  Link20XX ( talk ) 16:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Link20XX : .  Just for the record though, I tried searching Japanese results and came up empty in terms of notability (COMIC Natalie just had release info).  This looks to be notable from the English side as there are reviews for the series and it was brought over to be serialized.  - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found; also appear to be some sources in Japanese but I did not do anything in-depth to verify notability from those since I believe it is already established by Link20XX .  DCsansei ( talk ) 13:58, 27 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
Catnapped!: Sources are user-generated and IMDB.  Notability seems weak at best.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Anime and manga ,  and Japan .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) Keep .    The Anime Encyclopedia has apparently an entry and there is another here .  Sources in French: Planète Jeunesse [ fr ] has a a page and there is this ; this in Dutch; this in English (generally accepted at Afds).  At least, but that seems enough to attest notability and improve the page, which I am willing to do. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by Mushy Yank.  Fulmard ( talk ) 13:11, 17 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!  23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources above, the subject has notability and the sources demonstrate that.  Notability is based on the sources available, not on the current state of the article.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 02:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was referring to the comment above, that the user has said that he is willing to add them.  I know next to nothing about anime.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 02:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] .... : Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism.  is a gratuitous and extremely inappropriate comment, especially when  "the people" who  found and presented the sources to a deletion discussion that you initiated, have indeed said they are willing to add them to the page......- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely a bit on the snitty side for someone who seems to have missed sources Before, certainly.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources look to be mostly user-generated databases of kid's films, which IMO count as trivial mentions and not SIGCOV.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:07, 27 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
Johan Svantesson: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG .  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Sweden .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added.  Giant Snowman 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Found few sources 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Charsaddian ( talk ) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources above are a brief mention in an injury report/interview with a teammate, a Q&A interview with almost zero commentary, a press release from Allsvenskan, and a press release from MUSC (his former club).  Nowhere close to GNG.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , here are three more independent sources which are either only about Svantesson or significantly covers him: [22] [23] [24] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a more recent article from 2021 covering his injury and path to recovery, the same article also seems to have been published in other local newspapers: [25] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article significantly and added the relevant sources I found, including one I couldn't find online but did exist in a local newspaper.  Pinging @ GiantSnowman : as requested.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 13:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see what the first source says, but if it's another interview it's unlikely to be independent enough.  The middle source has some material, but the way it is structured it seems like it's paraphrasing quotes directly from him rather than contributing independent analysis.  The last source is wholly routine transfer news with no SIGCOV.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added by AlexandraAVX and Charsaddian.  Frank Anchor 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:52, 2 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
Luis Olaso: The article says that he played for the Spanish national team, which is probably true but unverified, and there isn't a football notability guideline that says that this is notability or presumed notability.  The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage within seven days.  Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find coverage.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Spain .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of all the poorly sourced footballer articles around, why pick a player for AfD who played for two of the biggest clubs in Spain and made four international appearances for Spain?  🤔 What did your "search for additional sources" per WP:BEFORE yield?  A quick web search found me [49] and [50] though for a player of this era most coverage is more likely to be found offline.  Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk ) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly a notable figure, shown by sources above and COMMONSENSE which would say that offline sources exist.  Giant Snowman 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As a player of Real Madrid easily passes WP:FOOTYN .  The article needs to be improved.  I found a couple of online sources, I think there are others, not to mention offline.  [51] [52] .  Tau Corvi ( talk ) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "Player notability" part of WP:FOOTYN has been deprecated.  Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk ) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok. thanks Tau Corvi ( talk ) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [53] , [54] , lets throw a few more sources into this bout!  Really Robert, this was not a good candidate for AfD.  The article certainly needs an improvement, but the negation of sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion.  Govvy ( talk ) 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per all above.  Svartner ( talk ) 19:18, 17 July 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
Arghavan Salles: Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Profiles by American Womens Medical Association and Stanford, and the Time article (not specifically about her, but significant) should establish notability.   She has an admirable publication record and has written for general media (e.g. the USA Today editorial).   All of these are already cited in the article.   Yes, the article tends toward the promotional and there are too many citations to social media, but these issues can be cleaned up without deletion.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Many valid references establish notability.  Also of note: the nominator has no contributions other than this AfD.  See Bumblebumbum

Discussion outcome: keep
Jason Windsor (businessman): Only primary sources provided.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Cricket ,  and England .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Simple search seems to bringing up GNG passing coverage such as this .  Looks to be plenty out there.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article is out of date.  He's no longer at Aviva.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article has been updated.  JP ( Talk ) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Rugbyfan22 and recent expansion.  AA ( talk ) 20:15, 12 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
Athletic Union of Greek Alexandria: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Egypt ,  and Greece .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Some significant coverage, could use more sources.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 16:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One century old club, played at Egypt's top league.  The references are hard to check, I wish there were easier ones, but I'll presume they are legitimate unless p+roven otherwise (RSSSF is mostly OK).  This looks like a clear keep.  - Nabla ( talk ) 20:12, 29 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
List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A nice referenced list to have.   However, how is it kept up to date?  — Maile ( talk ) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion.  Master of Time ( talk ) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA .  Christian75 ( talk ) 11:42, 4 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!  22:37, 6 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!  22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to be a reasonable stand-alone list .  Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons.  Solid enough for a stand-alone list.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 08:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons.  Benpiano800 ( talk ) 23:35, 18 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
European Medical Association: JMWt ( talk ) 20:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This talks about it [39] and many other hits in Gscholar, notably for setting treatment guidelines.  This talks about the group in relation to a person named to the head of the organization [40] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b .  Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b Lewcm Talk to me!  23:24, 25 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
Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics: I don't read Estonian, but nothing I can find online indicates depth required for WP:ORG for this small organization.  Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies ,  and Estonia .  Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Pray, Star Mississippi, in your pursuit for depth, have you ventured to employ Estonian search terms, or does your verdict rest on anglophone sources alone?  I find reluctance in casting a 'delete' vote when linguistic comprehension, as is relevant here, appears limited.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as I noted when I PRODded it, there's also no sourcing in the Estonian article.  I searched on Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon which brings up the same as English.  Confirmation it exists but zero in depth.  It does not appear to be a large organization that attracted attention in either language Star Mississippi 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is a bit out of date, but all the information is sourced, mostly from reliable independent sources.  A web search on "Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon" gives plenty of hits.  This one is typical.  Not very exciting maybe, but a valid subject.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no indication that the Estonian Nurses Union is independent of the Association since its constituents include nurses Star Mississippi 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some nurses involved in geriatric care will belong to both organizations, but that does not mean the Nurses Union is associated with EGGA.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'd invoke WP:NOTPAPER .  This is clearly an established professional body of a specific field in a small country, that is not the centre of any particular controversy.  Thus it is unrealistic to expect there to be tons of articles online.  There is indepth coverage, such as this article in Estonian Medical Journal, https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EA/article/download/10703/5888/ discussing the role of the organization.  See also p. 214 , "In addition , the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics ( EGGA ) has conducted several national and international surveys ( health and social services ; coping and well - being of the older population ) ."  I find a number of other google books hits of studies using studies by EGGA as reference material.  -- Soman ( talk ) 20:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Soman.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 25 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