hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Vivek Venugopal : The only valid claim of notability seems to be that the subject is known for introducing a musical instrument called Visitar along with Erisa Neogy which is not a part of any of our notability criteria.  Additionally the article is completely reference bombed .  The references mostly consist of bad sources including blogs and PR self-published that do not count towards establishing GNG.  Thesixserra ( talk ) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India .  Thesixserra ( talk ) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At the very least, these references appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV [17] [18] [19] .   Those are in the article but I'd add this from a quick google search, which is an interview but it's lengthy and not just a promo piece.  [20] Yes, the article tone is promotional, and yes it's got a lot of garbage references, but this guy is an internationally touring musician with multiple albums and WP:RS press coverage.  Does he need more?  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Looking at the first nomination this does not seem to be the 2nd nomination of the same article.   That other article appears to deal with a journalist; no suggestion this is a journalist-turned-musician.  Oblivy ( talk ) 11:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree.  That journalist has nothing in common with this musician.  He is better known as Visita as most coverage is under this stage name.  NDreteler ( talk ) 13:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oblivy : I fixed it.  Can you check and let me know which "garbage references" you're talking about?  I can share my rationale afterwards.  NDreteler ( talk ) 13:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the links seem thinly disguised press releases, such as [21] and [22] Also, at the time the article was nominated, it also had a string of links to the artist's website which are generally only good for establishing minor facts (in fact, how they were used) but not notability.  Overall most of the citations seemed even at the time to be reasonably high quality.  Oblivy ( talk ) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Would the nominator mind explaining how this is not "properly referenced"?  I thoroughly checked: each and every sentence is well-cited.  "Blogs and PR self-published" - do you have anything to support this claim?  The Hindu , Rolling Stone India , New Indian Express and its magazine Indulge , and Rock Street Journal all are very reliable and that's how this whole biography is cited .  There is no mention of "PR" - they have proper "bylines" - if nom.  had a chance to open them.  NDreteler ( talk ) 13:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For Visita: (

Discussion outcome: keep
Preethi (name) : Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and replace the section within Preeti to a see also.  Alternatively.  split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links.  Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect.  The article should not be deleted.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I have no objection to redirecting Preethi (name) to Preeti .  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 00:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and India . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. -- T avix ( talk ) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable.  In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree that they're related, but my issue is that they're not the same name.  For example, Thomas and Tomas are separate pages, as is Katherine and Katerine .  -- T avix ( talk ) 22:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - If this is the case, let's have separate pages for " Preity " and " Priti ".  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid concern although I'd say those pages are split because many more people have those names and there's a linguistic difference.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and replace text at Preeti#Notable people named Preethi with a {{ main }} hatnote.  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 20:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Preeti#Notable_people_named_Preethi .  WP:CFORK .  No need for separate page.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , separate pages for Jon and John and Tom and Thom, so why did her here?  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 09:39, 29 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
The Big Snog : Despite the involvement of many notable people, I could not find significant coverage in google news.  Even as plain google search of ["Big Snog" telethon  -wikipedia] yielded little.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable enough.  killer bee 09:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not surprising that there was little to be found online about a 1995 event.  After a quick search of newspapers from the time, I found significant coverage here , here , here , and here .  There's likely more as I only conducted a brief search.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Based on the newspaper sources given above, it's notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:59, 18 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: keep
Robert Goldstone : Risedemise ( talk ) 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Psychology , Indiana ,  and Michigan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least with stunning citation record.  Nominator is asked to make more constructive edits.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Speedy keep , WP:SK3 , inadequate or completely erroneous nomination.  One of a spree of recent nominations (by unrelated nominators) that neither take into account the criteria of WP:PROF nor evidence even the most cursory of WP:BEFORE searches.  His Google Scholar profile [6] and faculty profile [7] provide clear passes of five WP:PROF criteria, one of which was also clearly stated in the article as nominated, any one of which would be enough by itself, and none of which depend on secondary sources.  His heavy citation counts give him a pass of #C1, his "distinguished professor" title gives him a pass of #C5, and his membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (the better of the two AAAS's) gives him a pass of #C3.  His Troland Award also gives him a likely pass of #C2.  And his editorship of Current Directions in Psychological Science passes #C8.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per above.  Also, the subject is an elected member of AAAS [8] and the recipient of awards, including, the 2024 Howard Crosby Warren Medal from the Society of Experimental Psychologists .  [9] .  Jaireeodell ( talk ) 23:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NPROF handily, as above.  Qflib ( talk ) 08:16, 20 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
Senate Bill 1953 : Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 23:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This is a prosaic, run-of-the-mill law.  TH1980 ( talk ) 00:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act .  This Act, sometimes called Senate Bill 1953, satisfies GNG.  It has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles.  A search for something like "Senate Bill 1953"+seismic [43] and "S B 1953"+seismic [44] and "SB 1953"+hospital etc might have helped to identify many of these, although they are not particularly difficult to find with direct searches.  The Act is also part of the Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act, also called the Alquist Act, and by various other names and citations.  The Alquist Act in turn is part of the California Health and Safety Code .  I think it would be easier to write and expand an article about the Alquist Act as a whole, so I support a move to the broader topic.  James500 ( talk ) 05:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does that relate to Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act ?  BruceThomson ( talk ) 08:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can tell there is more than one Alquist Act.  The new short title of this Alquist Act, which was given by SB 850, chapter 1989/396, is the "Alfred E Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983".  The former short title was the "Hospital Seismic Safety Act", and it actually dates to 1973.  The new date of 1983 refers to an amendment that was made in that year: [45] .  Senate Bill 1953 of 1994 itself is an amendment to the said Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act.  James500 ( talk ) 08:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move: per sources such as shown abovv by James500.  // Timothy :: talk 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 13 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
Las Vega's (Chilean TV series) : Tagged for notability since 2013 Donald D23 talk to me 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Chile .  Donald D23 talk to me 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- this is an annoying search on Google so it is hard to find things, but I found a large number of independent sources discussing it in a few places: [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] .  The article needs improvement, but this is a clear keep for me. matt91486 ( talk ) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if Matt91486 can implement the above sources as they demonstrate notability.  – Meena • 10:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources actually being put in the article aren't necessary for AFD, per NEXIST.  matt91486 ( talk ) 14:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just hope to see them actually implemented so the article is improved.  – Meena • 11:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:33, 16 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
Now That's What I Call Music! 2 (American series) : 1keyhole ( talk ) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It was a top three album and I see no reason this article should be deleted.  Standard NOW series article.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Would be nice if there was more than just the AllMusic review, but regardless, the charting and double platinum cert alone should be enough.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above 2 comments.  Releases of this caliber are going to have coverage out there somewhere - it's unrealistic to suggest otherwise.  This article needs improvement, not deletion.  Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 18 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
Birel : It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons.  Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable.  JM 12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  JM 12624 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep here some WP:SIGCOV , mostly in the historical archive of Corriere della Sera , accessible via WP:LIBRARY : [13] "È Lissone la Maranello dei go-kart campioni del mondo", 30 April 1986 p. 32 ( Milan edition) [14] "In kart alla conquista dell'America", 12 May 1990 p. 45 [15] "È florida in Italia l'industria dei kart", 24 September 1977, p. 17 Coverage of a 2014 merger on Gazzetta dello Sport : [16] An in-depth review of one of their karts on tkart.it, specialized magazine: [17] Broc ( talk ) 08:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I agree based on these sources this seems notable, I don't have WP:LIBRARY access so much appreciated.  If no other arguments are put forward this seems to pass WP:GNG JM 12624 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 14:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Broc.  Being a well known brand like the since deleted Tony Kart , has so much potential for notability.  WP:ATD would be to draftify.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:28, 29 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
Philip Daniel Bolden : Minor roles.  Bedivere ( talk ) 01:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Louisiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : The subject person clearly had lead roles in Are We There Yet?  (see Screen Rant [55] and Republic TV [56] ), Are We Done Yet?  (see The New York Times [57] and BBC [58] ), and Fly Me to the Moon (see NYT [59] and The Augusta Chronicle [60] ), in addition to a supporting role in How to Eat Fried Worms (see Slant Magazine [61] and NYT [62] ), so he clearly meets NACTOR#1.  Besides, it was stated that the subject person has won one Young Artist Award and been nominated for another, which fulfills ANYBIO#1 for multiple nominations.  I have noticed this is the second nomination of the same article, while the nominator has failed to provide any additional rationale or evidence from the previous discussion to demonstrate this article is non-notable.  Unless the nominator can provide further elaboration, this appears to be an obvious keep case that may even qualify for a borderline speedy.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:NACTOR seems indeed met.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 18 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
Perdita Hyde-Sinclair : Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE except a couple of passing mentions.  May I suggest a redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) as an WP:ATD .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per WP:HEY , as this article has been greatly improved since the nomination, and likely will be improved even more.  The character is clearly notable and has SIGCOV and the 27+ sources show that.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article has been improved since the nomination.  I disagree that there was not enough sources elsewhere online as I could find numerous.  It looks like they are being added to the article.  No need to redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) since the article passes GNG and has SIGCOV in offline print sources.  Rain the 1 18:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per improvements made to article post-nomination.  – Meena • 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've had a go at improving the article and believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  There are a number of sources out there for the character, but I will concede that it does take someone with knowledge of the subject to find them all.  I do wish that a discussion had taken place on a relevant talk page, before coming straight to WP:AfD though.  Also, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with refs coming from the same source?  - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:50, 19 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: keep
Joker: Yurusarezaru Sōsakan : Tagged for notability since 2020 Donald D23 talk to me 23:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan .  Donald D23 talk to me 23:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to FujiTV for now would have been warranted but in the light of the sources presented below by Dekimasu, keep . .- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC) (edited Dec. 5) [ reply ] Keep as with other recent examples of this type of nomination; nationally-televised series with double-digit viewership percentages like this pass WP:NTVNATL and there is no evidence a WP:BEFORE check was performed in Japanese, which would have resulted in hits in Kinema Junpo , news sources like this and this , links to the novelization, etc.  Dekimasu よ!  05:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per convincing sources provided by Dekimasu and in light of the nominator's failure to do a WP:BEFORE search in Japanese.  I also see additional sources in Japanese but Dekimasu's sources mean this article already passes threshold for the GNG.  DCsansei ( talk ) 21:30, 14 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: keep
Isaac Spackman : Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 01:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think I have added sufficient refs to bring this up to notable.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Agree.  He satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:34, 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