hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Attanthangal: Sohom ( talk ) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've modified the coordinates given in the article, thus a click on them shows at Google maps and Bing maps this location exists.  I think it's a case of WP:POPULATED ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable").  -- Cyfal ( talk ) 20:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, I do see a few reliable sources barely mentioning this as well on a deeper BEFORE search.  That being said, I wonder given the lack of coverage whether it would be appropriate to redirect this to Chennai (with no prejudice towards recreation).  Sohom ( talk ) 20:25, 1 January 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!  23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:POPULATED Geardona ( talk to me? ) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – well, major Indian news organizations including Times of India & The Hindu recognize it, so WP:POPULATED applies.  TLA (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To continue discussion w/r/t sourcing.  Edit conflict on the close, and per request on my Talk.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the relist, the comment I was going to make in an attempted relist is that the above arguments for keep make assertions that WP:POPULATED has been met or that there is coverage available in TOI or The Hindu, but I'm not seeing any examples of sources that support either of those assertions in this discussion or in the article's citations.  signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added the only three sources that have barely mentioned this place to the article.  This does include one pulication from TOI and one from The Hindu.  However, if we zoom out of Wikipedia policy land for a second, Chennai is a huge metropolitan city that is the sixth-most populous city in India.  Normally localities of such cities get hundreds (if not thousands) of sources talking about them.  The fact that there are only three sources which are barely mentions of this neighbourhood, tells me that this neighbourhood isn't notable enough for a standalone article at this point.  Sohom ( talk ) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Discussion outcome: keep
Jamie Christopher: All sources are simply parroting his death announcement and involvement in two mega-franchises (Harry Potter and Marvel) with no noteworthy individual accomplishments.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep.  What is currently on the page attests notability: 3 reliable independent in-depth sources about him.  And a brief internet search shows plenty of other sources.  He is clearly notable.  Also notable as creative professional for his noted contributions to extremely notable films, as the said sources prove. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I believe he does meet notability guidelines, but the article definitely needs expanding.  Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 4 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!  20:47, 7 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!  23:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Death generally doesn't establish notability, but notability can become apparent upon death.  There is a lot of coverage of this individual that appeared upon their death, not for their death but for their work.  So I believe WP:BASIC is met.  Side note, I am not sure if WP:CREATIVE applies to technical roles like assistant director, which is a confusingly named non-creative role in filmmaking.  — siro χ o 03:08, 15 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
Hamed Ameli: I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the  article that contains the list of governors in Iran.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC) Comment Fixing malformed nomination.   I am neutral at this time.   -- Finngall talk 16:56, 10 June 2024 (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/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge.  In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been put forward.  In any case the subject clearly meets GNG.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:36, 11 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
July 2023 Tel Aviv attack: This article is about your average attack during the Israel-Palestine conflict and, aside from some coverage updating the victim count, doesn't look to be significant from a NOTNEWS standpoint.  Also, the death toll of two isn't much either.  Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Per nom.  Sadly a mundane Israel-Palestine conflict occurrence.  Not discernably notable.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE [31] , [32] , [33] -- Shrike ( talk ) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It meets both the WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT , as detailed above, and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS .  Unfortunately, notable and violent events in West Asia and elsewhere keep coming.  The experience for Israel is that books and news media keep getting back to such events.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not have major long term consequences.  The only coverage is news coverage, not sustained secondary coverage.  As such, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS .  Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of interesting news stories.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is enough news coverage that it WP:GNG is met (beyond WP:NOTNEWS ).  ParadaJulio ( talk ) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:RAPID .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  WP:NOTNEWS would apply here if it were a "routine" car ramming or coverage was limited to the local police blotter; this one received WP:SIGCOV in international media like the BBC, France 24, CNN , Reuters , and more WP:RS , clearly qualifying it under WP:GNG .  The event also received news coverage after the event.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:55, 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: keep
Korry Howell: Joeykai ( talk ) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Also found this [50] , with the Chicago Tribune article, we probably have enough for basic notability, was an up-and-coming minor leaguer, then it didn't work out.  Was notable at a one point, so should be ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Iowa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 14 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!  22:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found three additional sources which are pretty helpful in establishing notability, see these: [51] , [52] , [53] Kline • talk • contribs 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs more clean up but WP:HEY works better, at least clean up isn't deletion.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:45, 31 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
Steven Dean Memorial Trophy: Let'srun ( talk ) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, even though this one had the major games played before internet era and newspaper references are harder to add-- Banderas ( talk ) 09:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:MUSTBESOURCES . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added several new sources. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk ) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 20:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:28, 24 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
William Lychack: Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works).  Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR , no evidence of (3) so far.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to having a work reprinted in Best American Short Stories and receiving a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship, both of which are really big deals for an author, his works have been reviewed by The New York Times (see here ), Publishers Weekly (See here and here ), Kirkus Reviews (see here and here ) along with additional reviews in places like USA Today, Library Journal, Booklist and many other places (these last ones can be found with a search in the Wikipedia Library).  There are also interviews and coverage of the subject in places like The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and The LA Times Review of Books .  Easily meets Wikipedia's notability standards for creative professionals .  -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has a solid history of reviews in US national press. Jahaza ( talk ) 03:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lots of sources per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as NAUTHOR per reviews of his work. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 09:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as above.  The nominator should sign their nomination with 4 tildas.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:14, 28 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
2004 Auburn Tigers football team: Suggest merging with Auburn tigers football .  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very clear WP:SIGCOV which allows this article to meet GNG.  The team went 13-0, they were undefeated in the highest level of college football and were ranked top 10 in the AP polls for over 10 weeks.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It does need better sourcing, but this is so clearly a keep that the AfD is either mistaken or vexatious.  SportingFlyer T · C 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not trying to be vexatious, so sorry if it came off that way.  I just couldn't find sources describing this particular year of the team in detail (as opposed to describing it at the time).  I do not know whether there are particular criteria for this sort of topic though, so if I have missed something I apologize and will withdraw the AfD.  XabqEfdg ( talk ) 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply clicking on the Sugar Bowl article would bring up multiple sources which cover the team's season.  SportingFlyer T · C 05:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep , as others have noted the team was a ranked FBS team and clearly meets the WP:GNG .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 05:01, 24 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
List of years in Uzbekistan: There are only a few links here that actually have pages.  This page could better be served as a footer template.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions .  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 12 links are legitimate.   Since they used the template format, can't easily get rid of the pointless links.   Deleting those redirects will make the bad links appear red.  D r e a m Focus 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 21:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Footerize Every 12 months in Uzbekistan, a year passes.  Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 21:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep 12 links go to actual articles, and although it's marginal in my opinion, I think there's enough links for the article to exist.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm concerned that if we eliminate one sovereign country's list of years, we create a terrible precedent.  Certainly, more work needs to be done, but that is not the purpose of AfD.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:31, 18 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
Barry Biesanz: NO coverage at all found, appears to be a working person only with no critical notice.  Not at GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm shocked too, to be honest -- really didn't expect anything but I should've because a lot of these are actually listed in the article (kind of weirdly, but they're there).  Newspapers.com pulled a plethora of coverage, including a feature-length article from the Edmonton Journal and other papers from the same ownership company ( [47] ).  He was mentioned in a paragraph of "Trip Coach" from an Arthur Frommer magazine ( [48] ), appears in the "Bring the Troops Home Now" newsletter on p. 15 as the catalyst for a student protest in a high school that also garnered some press attention where he was featured in it ( "barry biesanz" , [49] , [50] ), appears in the NYT in a feature about Costa Rican wood in a positive review in two separate paragraphs analyzing his work ( [51] ).  Needs cleanup, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article does seem to have at least a bit of a good (if un-referenced) base, so I'm not at WP:TNT .  Nomader ( talk ) 04:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll include references to the newspaper articles today; I think I have a dozen or so articles.   Most of the newspaper articles are pre internet tho, except for the two New York Times articles.  I'll also add categories today.  You are right, he was interviewed for the anti vietnam war protest in Time or Newsweek and Playboy, another reference to add today.  Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 12:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, normally when I go to clip Newspapers.com stories, I do it myself -- most of these, it looks like you found them already (I'm assuming they're yours).  If so, really good work pulling all of these together.  Nomader ( talk ) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!   Still looking for citations for the other articles and exhibitions.  Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 22:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Costa Rica and Louisiana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Citations will be added today - there's quite a bit of news coverage.  Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 13:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I checked the Edmonton Journal article and the nyt article .  Both of these are easily sigcov.  — hako9 ( talk ) 02:29, 9 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
Wikibooks: All the sources that I reviewed are primary sources, data table of activity, passing mentions.  The only article that seems to talk in any material way about wikibooks does so from a Wikipedia centric view and how it's complementary [42] I don't feel like this article will survive a 3 reliable reference rule audit.  Greatder ( talk ) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Internet .  Greatder ( talk ) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Have you done a WP:BEFORE or checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (2nd nomination) ?  Its notability is tied to the Wikimedia Foundation , we could consider a List of Wikimedia Foundation projects.  IgelRM ( talk ) 03:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ IgelRM Wikiquote just about passes notability guideline with quite a lot of article about it and research paper mentions.  Unlike wikibooks, which I have not seen much wide use or reporting of.  Greatder ( talk ) 14:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It makes sense to have an article about each of the WMF sister projects.  Consult with the Wikibooks community about improving the article.  -- Jtneill - Talk 10:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jtneill Does the article in current form and references exist?  I do not think so.  Just because something is affiliated with WMF doesn't mean it's notable.  It should be reinforced by multiple reliable secondary sources.  Notability is not inherited.  Greatder ( talk ) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's definitely third-party discussion of the project.  For example.  here's an article from an IEEE publication about the project, its social structure, and its potential future impact on the textbook industry.  Lubal ( talk ) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lubal Thanks!  This seems like a really high quality source that I feel is enough to establish notability for this article.  (If and when it is properly referenced in the article of course)  Greatder ( talk ) 18:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unsure the association article grants full notability, but I think an AFD has limited potential to improve things anyway.  IgelRM ( talk ) 10:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Really just offered that as an example, a Google Scholar search for "wikibooks" has a whole bunch of things that look promising.  Lubal ( talk ) 15:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per...  I don't know.  Let's try obvious common sense.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 20:50, 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: keep