hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
José Lavat : Boleyn ( talk ) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Because of the independent coverage in reliable sources about him, in La Tercera , El Universal and in a lot of Spanish-language newspapers in various countries at the time of his death.  He's also actor .  Has given his name to the Lavat Awards (for voice actors), which contributes to his notability. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are OBITs/memorials, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources .  (aka WP:OBIT) states: "Obituaries published by high-quality reliable sources are often treated as valuable sources for articles on deceased individuals, since they provide a broad overview of the subject's life."  Not to mention the fact that when so many obituaries are published in the media it certainly indicates something about notability.  And most of them are (obviously) addressing the (deceased) subject directly (and in depth ). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarification .  Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject.  I am sorry but I am directing other users to the article itself, that I have improved a bit, and where I added sources (including some from the newspapers I only mentioned here by name; and please note that there a lot of them, and that I didn't add them all.  The Mubi page is ...about him (and only here to show he is also an actor).  And the source about the Lavat Awards states, as whoever who opens the link can verify, in Spanish (roughly/penultimate paragraph): "The Lavat Awards are the most important Awards for voice actors/dubbing in Latin America. They were created in 2019 in honour of José Lavat, one of the most prominent figures in this field in Latin America".  I have, I'm afraid, no further comment. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:58, 22 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
Guy Scheiman : Doesn't meet WP:GNG .  US-Verified ( talk ) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nominated for a major music award; enough to meet WPMUSICBIO.  116.92.232.6 ( talk ) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep IMA award nomination is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO.  IMA can be a considered a major award since it has a Wikipedia page of its own.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I don't think the IMAs are major enough for WP:NMUSICBIO (unlike the awards listed for NMUSICBIO).   I can't find any real SIGCOV in a quality RS on him, and can't see the refs that would therefore give him GNG?  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 23:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not convinced the Independent Music Awards are notable; most of the "winners" don't even have articles, so it appears to be a minor award.  I can't find much for sourcing for the DJ otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:39, 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
Vida Loka II : No in-depth coverage in secondary sources.  Binksternet ( talk ) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Binksternet ( talk ) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 .  Reneradelsilver ( Reneradelsilver ) 23:14, 27 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 ) 05:28, 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!  07:23, 12 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
Hoërskool Noordheuwel : Sources are to hyperlocal news sources that read like user-submitted or sponsored copy ("Die kersie op die koek: Hoërskool Noordheuwel is die TOP AKADEMIESE SKOOL in Gauteng-Wes en bekleë ook die nr 5 posisie in Gauteng waarop ons baie trots is"... "The icing on the cake: Noordheuwel High School is the TOP ACADEMIC SCHOOL in Gauteng West and also holds the No. 5 position in Gauteng, which we are very proud of.") or a news site comprising regional high school sport news, not clearing the bar for NORG or GNG.  A BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in independent sources.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:24, 21 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!  22:14, 28 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
Shweta Rastogi : No non-trivial mentions in additional sources found to demonstrate notability.  Idell ( talk ) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television .  Idell ( talk ) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't delete the article Shweta Rastogi as it is posted from reliable sources. .  I have added many other sources as references that I could found.  Please improve the article, don't delete it.  116.206.202.14 ( talk ) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider moving it to draft space?  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  move it to the draftspave 116.206.202.14 ( talk ) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She has worked in many notable television serials.  And have notable references for same.  She had played a role of Radha in Ramanand Sagar's show Shri Krishna which is important and notable role.  Also in her latest serial Baalveer , she is playing role of Baalveer's mother which is again a notable and important role.  For me it passes WP:NACTOR .  It can be improved but do not require deletion.  DSN18 ( talk ) 18:08, 7 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!  05:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see why this article should be deleted, as she seems notable enough considering her work on the articles listed television serials, but there is definitely room for improvement.  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 12:28, 12 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!  06:25, 19 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: no consensus
Lord Mord : Cswiki has no sources, just a brief plot summary.  FromCzech ( talk ) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article already seems to have a review from a museum website.  Here's another review [2] Here's something from the Czeck literary center [3] There's a bit of coverage in an article in Spanish language from Notimex [4] .  This should readily pass WP:NBOOK .   — siro χ o 10:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have much experience with book pages and maybe I was too hasty with the deletion nomination, but as it stands the page is in a desperate state and useless.  It currently contains less information than the author's page and replacing it with a redirect would be more appropriate; or if it is to remain, it should be draftified.  FromCzech ( talk ) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Miloš Urban .  I'm pretty certain someone who knew where to look could write a properly sourced article about this book itself, but as it's so short, probably better to redirect to the author's page until that day comes.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miloš Urban .  Mccapra ( talk ) 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources demonstrating notability.  Additionally, Deletion is not cleanup.  It can also be draftified or tagged for improvement.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not change to redirect, draftify would be reasonable compromise.  FromCzech ( talk ) 13:35, 19 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
File:Always remember us single.jpg : Sricsi ( talk ) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wrong venue - This needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion and not here.  Suggest speedy close here.  -- MuZemike 10:39, 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
Compass Maps : DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 22:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree with nomination.  This is an insignificant company that lacks any notability.  Lack potential for an article.  Paul H. ( talk ) 00:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some coverage appears to exist for this, see [ [5] ], [ [6] ] (part 2), [ [7] ], [ [8] ].  However, it appears this likely doesn't meet the WP:NCORP , but I'm curious to hear what others think.  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently-provided sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on new sources.   Would be nice to have a more diverse range of media documenting the company, but I think that's enough to just barely pass WP:NCORP .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Subject just barely meets the WP:NCORP with the sources I found earlier, combined with [ [9] ], there is just enough for a keep.  User:Let'srun 14:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY , but if and only if, somebody adds the citations to this stub.  Bearian ( talk ) 20:03, 20 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: no consensus
Meaningful Broadband : 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  •C y b erw o l f• talk?  14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I think we've got a twofold issue using search results as a basis for deletion.  First, a lot of the sources in the article are older sources that have been archived.  Second, the sources we're looking for may be in languages other than English, which will make them hard to search for—and since they'd likely be Asian languages that don't use the Roman alphabet, it could be tricky to even look for an author's name, like Craig Warren Smith , to find them.  IMO, this article should be given a reprieve while the search for sources continues, but we also need sources to come from independent publications.  — C.Fred ( talk ) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia , Indonesia ,  and Thailand .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 14 March 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
Amala Shaji : It has been stated that she is a model and musician, although this has not been proven by the sources cited.  Fails WP:NACTOR , WP:GNG , and WP:NMODEL .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , India ,  and Kerala .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are many sources to prove that she is an Internet celebrity (social media artist/star) [105] Can it be proved whether dancer WP:ARTIST Notability passes??  -- Owner of magical cat 🐈 ( talk ) 9:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC) You've written an article about an internet celebrity for the second time.  She does not meet any of the WP:ARTIST requirements.  This is just an another case of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A celebrity vanity page.  Fails GNG.  Article has some weird claims that she is a social worker,model and actor.  She has not acted in any movies yet and is not a big boss contestant.  Only thing she is having are some Instagram and tik tok followers which is not a notability criteria.  116.68.101.172 ( talk ) 06:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Most coverage is about being a Big Boss contestant, but it's just enough.  Most is in malayalam script, so a Gnews search brings up lots there.  I'd give it a pass.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The sources used in the article, although mostly tabloid, demonstrate enough notability to 'get over the line'.  Redtree21 ( talk ) 11:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does't meet WP:GNG , nor WP:ARTIST .  Dcotos ( talk ) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Specific assessment of the sources available would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom does not meet NACTOR.  Tame Rhino ( talk ) 13:50, 19 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
Draft:Savannah Speedway : AriTheHorse 18:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 25 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A procedural close would appear to be warranted here at the very least — this was draftified before coming to AfD, but was not moved back to article space ( MfD handles the rare cases where a deletion discussion is warranted for a draft).  That said, the nominator is also the creator, and all other editors of the page have been formatting and/or tagging (and the aforementioned drafticiation), so it is possible that this might be a G7 speedy deletion candidate as well.  In any case, AfD would appear to be the wrong venue as it currently stands.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering this article is in the draftspace a procedural close makes sense as this should be listed at MfD.  Beyond that I have no opinion as of yet.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 19:53, 25 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
Albert Asriyan : Boleyn ( talk ) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep and improve - Skimming through the article, it's likely that WP:N can be met, but will require way more WP:RS to bolster/confirm it.  Searching by his name in Armenian (or perhaps even in Russian or Azeri) may yield more results.  Seems salvageable if an editor is willing to put in the time.  Archives908 ( talk ) 00:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:50, 19 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