hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Schulze STV : Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze.  As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 ( talk • contribs ) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional".  Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" ( arXiv:1804.02973 ) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports.  Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MarkusSchulze : am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article?   While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles.  We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion.  However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work.  Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Single transferable vote : where it is already mentioned.  A well written article about this largely impractical voting system, but no notability to support a standalone page.  Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this would really be a valid redirect, since Schulze STV is quite different from regular STV.  Jannikp97 ( talk ) 11:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many single transferable vote algorithms, and Schulze is one of them, which is why it is listed in that article.  Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do really think that is true.  STV usually refers to a precise family of rules.  Schulze STV does not belong to that family, despite its name.  Jannikp97 ( talk ) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:14, 29 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: no consensus
Sarah Thomson (actress) : The article itself has zero only 3 (edited after nomination as noticed it has 3 references, albeit none possibly pass the notability guidance) references and not much can be found about her on the web.  Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk ) — If (reply) then ( ping me ) 10:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Radio ,  and New Zealand .  Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk ) — If (reply) then ( ping me ) 10:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She's most known for her roles in the Power Rangers, yet the text doesn't discuss them and the characters are secondary (from what I see).  I'm not showing ACTOR as being met.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This lazy ! vote is a strawman.  Makes a claim that is not true so they can knock it down.  Totally dismisses her biggest roles.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 10:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Comment .  If anything gets her over the threshold for WP:NACTOR , it'd be her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show ; the former is a recurring role in a very significant show, the latter is a lead role in a less significant show.  I've added some additional sources but still not convinced she meets WP:SIGCOV .  Staying on the fence for now, but will keep thinking on it.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 00:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've done a bit more digging (see my amends to the article) and am updating my vote to keep.  Significant roles in multiple notable productions, so presumption is in favour of notability, and there is a reasonable amount of coverage in reliable sources about her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show .  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes NACTOR with her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show .  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 10:43, 2 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!  22:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly meets NACTOR criteria 1 WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 00:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available source material, and its sufficiency (or lack thereof) for an article, would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - subjects meets WP:NACTOR and the references in the article support this.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:44, 22 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: no consensus
Simple past : Both talk about essentially the same concept.  The article even says that preterite is an alternate name for simple past.  TheLatinNerd ( talk ) 02:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  Kpg jhp jm 06:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  This article cites no sources.  It is also possible to redirect to Preterite#English .  -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 07:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't notice earlier that there were no sources.  Since there aren't, we should probably delete and redirect.  TheLatinNerd ( talk ) 17:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete .  Notable topic and a likely search term.  This seems to be a subtopic of Preterite : that article covers preterite tenses in a variety of languages, whereas this article is about English specifically.  No opinion on whether the article should be kept or merged/redirected to Preterite#English .  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : User:TheLatinNerd placed {{ merge from }} on Preterite and {{ Article for deletion }} on Simple past at about the same time (02:40, 29 July 2023).  I would recommend that this AfD be closed and a merger discussion started at Talk:Simple past .  If such discussion reaches consensus to merge, it would seem to accomplish all the goals mentioned in this AfD: merging the content, creating a redirect, and retaining the title as a search term.  Cnilep ( talk ) 07:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Closing the AfD and allowing for a merge discussion seems like a good solution to me.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 16:12, 13 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!  07:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  AfD is not the venue for this sort of article cleanup.  This plainly meets GNG, and as both articles have hatnotes for each other I've no concern of a bad content fork having happened.  Agree that the potential merge should be discussed on the talk page.  — siro χ o 12:17, 5 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!  06:26, 12 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: no consensus
Michel Pontremoli : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion?  FortunateSons ( talk ) 09:45, 29 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!  01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC .  There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:34, 3 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!  05:19, 10 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
Mehak Malik : Entirely unsourced.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The BLP previously included references, but they seem to have been deleted.  However, I agree that the subject may not meet the WP:GNG.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 08:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unable to find any good sources for this individual.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The [e] ntirely unsourced claim in the OP seems to have been made based on a version of the article that existed after it had been blanked by an IP .  There do seem to be sources, and I am presuming good faith about the coverage in sources written in a language I am not able to read (as notability can be provided via non-English sources).  I have also found coverage of Malik in the Journal of Media Studies and the Journal of Economics .  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:05, 16 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
DWGA-TV : Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment These should be merged into one mass AfD.  You can't expect people to reasearch and comment on every single one, but the resulting lack of attention will skew the results towards deletion regardless of merits.  small jars t c 09:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello small jars.  The references for each station need to be evaluated, regardless of whether the nominations are separate or combined.  It is possible that the situation will differ for some of the articles, so merging all of the nominations together could muddy the waters.  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be true that each article would be examined individually in an ideal world, but please consider merging if the majority of them haven't been commented on (excluding parrots) after a week.  small jars t c 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose The notability of this TV station appears to be supported by other references on Wikipedia, from non-english language sources.  (See: Tagalog entry for GMA network )  Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:23, 7 May 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!  07:57, 14 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: no consensus
Belize–Venezuela relations : Only one reliable source covers this topic.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BEFORE , meets WP:GNG .  I will try to translate the Spanish version soon.  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Conditional Keep if article is expanded per NoonIcarus, merge/redirect back to Foreign relations of Venezuela otherwise given that the article has been a one-sentence stub for two years.   I think this is a valid topic for a separate article, but recommend reading and applying WP:BEEF .  SnowFire ( talk ) 19:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Interstellarity and SnowFire : I have translated the content from Spanish and solved the existing cleanup tags.  I could look for further information is needed.  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 00:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for expanding the article.  Although in some cases deletion would be valid, it seems like in this case that not deleting the article is a perfectly reasonable outcome.  I think most of the articles that I come across on Wikipedia would probably survive AFD.  I think an article like Guinea–Israel relations , although it is a stub, would probably survive AFD since a quick Google search shows that the topic is covered in-depth in reliable sources.  I will give WP:BEFORE a read before nominating any article which should guide me through doing my checks before nominating the item.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sourcing is improved, thanks to User:NoonIcarus ; however, this is still pure WP:SYN .  Yilloslime ( talk ) 20:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per NoonIcarus.  Extensive articles cover their relationship to each other.  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 23:33, 15 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: no consensus
Irikku..M.D Akathundu : Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The page should be renamed Irikku M.D. Akathundu (without (..) before M.D.).  As for what to do with it, maybe redirect to PG Vishwambharan if not improved? - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Seems to be a notable older Malayalam films (hence poor sourcing).  The villain role was mentioned here: [2] , [3] .  There is also a mention in a company Chertala News albeit about an actor: [4] from [5] .  There is also a book mention: [6] .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are just passing mentions in reference to one of the actors in the film.  They don't show any coverage of the film itself.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, these don't constitute WP:SIGCOV .  Passing mentions are not significant coverage.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrikku M.D. Akathudu .  The film was reportedly a hit .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a message board and doesn't constitute a reliable source.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An article doesn’t need to be spammed with citations to be notable.  And you should not that articles emanating from none western states would naturally have lesser citations than western articles, most especially if they aww older.  Amaekuma ( talk ) 08:03, 22 July 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! * 21:08, 27 July 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!  23:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article name has a typo and needs to be moved assuming it gets kept.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Any more opinions on this one?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails WP:NFILM .  No indication that any of the alternative criteria there are met, and there is clearly no GNG coverage.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 21:02, 17 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: no consensus
A Shadow in Eternity : I have conducted a Google search, as well as individually searched for the book on Kirkus Reviews , Booklist , School Library Journal , Publishers Weekly , and Shelf Awareness to check for reviews or other indications of notability.  I have not seen references to the book aside from from booksellers and primary sources.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 01:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'll note the author has no article, but this looks arguably RS.  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Jclemens that the site looks reliable but haven't been able to access the full review because of their paywall.  Same with this from The Hindu .  This from Indian Express is more about the author than the series but does provide some coverage.  There's also this passing mention in a story about Indian LGBT books.  I strongly suspect that soemone with full access to these sources would find enough information to demonstrate notability under our guidelines, but since I'm unable to verify this 100% myself I'll not formally vote to keep but yeah that's what I suspect.  Barkeep49 ( talk ) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 03:14, 6 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!  03:23, 12 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