hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Flags used in Russian-occupied Ukraine: No reliable source significantly covers this subject.  The article is based on a collection of non-neutral, non-independent primary sources, aggregated by editorial WP:SYNTH , and some blogs or hobby websites, none covering the entire subject.  No evidence that this can be improved.   — Michael Z .  14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Russia ,  and Ukraine .   — Michael Z .  14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Maybe a name change to "List of flags used in the Russia-Ukrainian war", however I see it as being merely a list that needs a citation overhaul.  Here are a few sources I found: 1 , 2 .  Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )!  03:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is about historical flags, with the single exception of the DNR flag.  The second is about the Flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army .  They do not demonstrate that GNG support keeping this subject.   — Michael Z .  14:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  And I support the renaming proposal.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is the only page where we can keep these flags.  Unless we make a "List of Flags of Kherson Oblast" etc etc solely for the purpose of transferring over the contents of this article.  Scu ba ( talk ) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Such a list would still have to satisfy WP:LISTN .  Keeping these flags is a task for a hobbyist blog, not for the encyclopedia, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY .   — Michael Z .  14:01, 19 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
Eleven Cities Cycling Tour: Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Netherlands .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article could be expanded from the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A major event, over 100 years of history, 15,000 participants.  Plenty of coverage to be found.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A central Dutch cycling event that meets the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease.  Not sure how this could have been nominated.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:22, 21 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
Wun-Chang Shih: No international medal placements at all.  Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  PROD removed without explanation.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Skating ,  and Taiwan .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of Chinese sources with SIGCOV (eg, Liberty Times [20] , [21] , Central News Agency [22] , My Formosa [ zh ] [23] ).  His coaching career has also received media coverage (eg, TVBS News [24] , Mirror Media [25] , Central News Agency [26] , [27] ) — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  12:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Prince of Erebor.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Plenty of sources for SIGCOV.WP:GNG applies.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:53, 4 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
John McIntyre (copy editor): The PROD rationale was: "Doesn't look notable. The sources given are basically his employer, and people trying to sell books."  Tartar Torte 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and News media .  Tartar Torte 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If this is the same person mentioned here [10] , I think he's notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per what I said in the PROD, that Tartar has kindly reproduced here.  Dr. Vogel ( talk ) 09:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the article found by @ Oaktree b : I also found this in CSM, and these minor articles [11] , [12] .  He may also meet WP:NAUTHOR as I found at least one scholarly review of his book [13] .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think with all the new sources found, the individual is notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Incidentally, I arrived at this AfD by way of Bus Plunge .  I noticed that this individual had a long-running column in the Baltimore Sun , which alone might or might not not fulfill WP:JOURNALIST (haven't dived in too much), but it certainly adds to the currently established notability.  — siro χ o 23:21, 28 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
Son of Sam (EP): Only uses SoundCloud as a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust member ( talk • contribs ) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lucki : I could only find one announcement and two brief mentions in roundup announcement articles ( [10] [11] [12] ), and that's not enough for notability.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep .  We have three short reviews available, each providing some secondary analysis of the subject: Sheldon Pearce in Pitchfork [13] , including for example: On Son of Sam, he raps as if he’s perpetually groggy from a Xanax bender, penning wandering but colorful descriptions of his highs and what exactly he does to get them.  His writing hasn’t missed a beat, but his delivery has grown increasingly sedated and leisurely....  Leor Galil in Chicago Reader [14] including: ... rapper Lucki Ecks released Son of Sam, an EP that moves further toward the hazy, narcotized soundscapes he’s toyed with throughout his short career.  He takes an abrasive, experimental turn on “Jigga 98”....  Chris Mench in Complex magazine [15] including: The majority of the tape is dark, with Eck$ spitting over hazy, haunting beats.  It's certainly not destined for the radio, but his slurred, macabre style certainly has its appeal.  At times, his voice can even sound more like another part of the beat than something totally distinct from it.  Also have some short mentions in Brooklyn Vegan , Hip-hopVibe and a long retrospective review three years later in what seems to be a marginally reliable source Underground Underdogs — siro χ o 05:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 04:48, 27 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!  06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I'm skeptical about the last three sources Siroxo provides, but the first three just about scrape it over GNG for me.  AryKun ( talk ) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per siroxo.  dxneo ( talk ) 12:26, 17 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
Baliochila barnesi: This short article is about everything one can source.  Griseo veritas ( talk ) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  Griseo veritas ( talk ) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a valid species under an accepted name, and has three RS citations.  awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for linking this, it’s good to know.  I tried in vain to find something pertaining to animals but obviously I didn’t look hard enough.  Griseo veritas ( talk ) 06:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was going to link SPECIESOUTCOMES, but it's already done.  SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep per above.  AryKun ( talk ) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added a couple of citations to the article, including the protologue, which is linked to BHL.  This link should show that there is much information that could be added to the article, contrary to the nom's assertion.  Esculenta ( talk ) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep !  Why would we delete this species?  Please read WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES .  Jacona ( talk ) 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep duh Steven Walling • talk 06:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need to be rude.  Not everybody is as experienced with Wikipedia as you are, Steven.  Griseo veritas ( talk ) 07:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're all learning.  Steven Walling • talk 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given what I’ve learned from others input here and the existence of SPECIESOUTCOMES.  Griseo veritas ( talk ) 08:19, 24 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
SI-UK: Coverage is limited to badly disguised press releases and passing mentions.  Maduant ( talk ) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read!  Talk!  23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education ,  and United Kingdom .  Maduant ( talk ) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , Thailand ,  and Delhi .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This company is among the largest, and there are several reputable sources like IndianExpress, FreePressJournal, BusinessWorld, HeraldScotland, and DailyExcelsior that provide comprehensive coverage.  Additionally, there are numerous other sources available online.  The company operates in over 40 countries and has partnerships with leading UK universities.  It also received a 'highly commended' recognition in the Student Counselling Organization of the Year category at the 2021 Pioneer Awards.  By incorporating these sources, the article can be enhanced and benefit greatly.  Therefore, it would be more appropriate to retain the article and mark it for improvement instead of deletion.  Zehnasheen ( talk ) 10:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the article should be deleted in accordance with the rationale provided by the nominator.  RPSkokie ( talk ) 13:09, 20 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!  22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete.  Glanced through some of the references, thinly veiled press releases indeed.  However, if the nom was blocked then is the afd still valid?  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Given that the nominator is presently under a ban, it may be essential to adhere to the appropriate procedural closure and then proceed with re-nominating the article.  RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Response to comment is re-nominating the article prescribed under procedure or voluntary?  Can You point me to the rules please?  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A nomination can continue if the nominator is discovered to be a sockpuppet.  What I have seen is that if there were no "Delete" votes, then the discussions are closed early as a procedural "Keep".  But since there is a difference of opinion here, the discussion can continue.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:20, 24 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
Nicky Hoberman: Sources merely confirm her work was exhibited.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and South Africa .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It's a stub, and is pretty well sourced as such.  She appears to have exhibited in numerous locations, with a lot to sources to those sites.  The sources focus on her art, which is why she's notable.  We don't necessarily need to know an artist's background and personal life, just about her output.  — Maile ( talk ) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources demonstrate her notability.  The article is could do with more information but even as a stub it is still notable.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 19:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article's main source is a dead link from a gallery database https://www.whitfordfineart.com/artist/biography/307/nicky_hoberman .  Another main link is the artist's website .  However there are reliable sources at ArtUK and the Brooklyn Museum .  I cannot tell if her art is actually in the collection of the Brooklyn Museum or if she is just listed in their feminist database.  I don't see a way to expand the article and the current sourcing is bad.  Leaning towards delete, unless there is sourcing to show that her work is in a collection or notable.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I still can't figure out if she is in the Brooklyn Museum, but citations of in depth reviews of solo shows added to the article.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:44, 18 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
Woman Kills Injured Man: With regard to the existing sources on the page, one is from the museum which displays the piece (so not independent) and another is a dead link to another online encyclopaedia (which would not appear to be a RS and may even be circular referencing from a WP project).  So at best there appears to only be one source on the page that could count towards notability.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Norway .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep there’s a book ref (snippet) here and a magazine piece here .  In addition it’s part of a major collection of modern art.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as a comment on these sources, the first is just a preview on GBooks so it isn't possible to make a definitive judgment but it looks like a passing mention.  The second consists of two paragraphs.  I'm not convinced either meet the standards of RS needed by the notability standards.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "fairly generic title" -huh??  It's probably no good looking for sources in English.  The artist's bio lists a number of books on this rather colourful artist and his work published well after this is painted, so I think we can be confident there would be enough in these.  Johnbod ( talk ) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching for "Woman Kills Injured Man" gives news articles about road accidents.  The fact that the artist is notable doesn't mean every work of theirs is notable because notability is not inherited.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say that at all.  But notable artists about whom a lot has been published will have significan coverage of all significant works.  Johnbod ( talk ) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, well then consider this a challenge; show me some.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not having access to a good Norweigan library at the moment I can't.  But perhaps someone else can.  You do realize there is no obligation for sources to be online?  Johnbod ( talk ) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You realise that when challenged you have to show that RS exist rather than just postulating that they must?  JMWt ( talk ) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , prose has now been added about its initial display.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:50, 3 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
Kashana Cauley: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 30 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:22, 30 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
Carmen E. Garza: .  "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider .  Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , United States of America ,  and New Mexico .  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability.  This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied.  This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator.  And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning.  I think these factors push this over the line for notability.  SeenToBeDone ( talk ) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC , such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [ [18] ] and Reuters [ [19] ].  Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Stifle ( talk ) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations.  No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 30 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