hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Silvaco: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 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!  02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions.  [29] ~ A412 talk!  01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk ) 06:28, 24 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: keep
Yamini Aiyar: May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable.  Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Organizations , Delhi ,  and United Kingdom . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  She's the head of Centre for Policy Research ; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF . — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No longer the head .  Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions.  I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS .  Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS .  Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [13] .  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (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 ) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of refs for this.  Desertarun ( talk ) 15:43, 19 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
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: The person is not elected representative, representing government at any level and sources are also scarce.  Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Allahabad High Court is an WP:NPOL qualifying position: specifically, judges who have held... state/province–wide office.  They're a judge on the highest court of a state with 241 million inhabitants, this is an easy keep.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan.Judge of the Allahabad High Court is a WP:NPOL qualifying position.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NJUDGE.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  12:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per others above, a clear-cut WP:NPOL pass.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:51, 28 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
Trap (carriage): This page only defines the term Trap (as a carriage).  The only reference is to a phrase finder.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Horse racing .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Blatant WP:NOTDICT violation.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Keep I think there may be the content and sourcing available to expand the article to more than just a dictionary definition.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references that are way more than a dictionary definition.  They cover a range of designs for traps.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you added six sources to verify the dictionary definition in the article, but the deletion proposal is not based on any doubt that a pony-trap is a type of carriage.  The problem with this article is it is very clearly just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is the wrong wikiproject for that.  I also note that your sources include two glossaries of terms (just reinforcing WP:NOTDICT arguments), a for-sale listing of a trap, and a stock photo of a trap.  I suppose these were all added to reinforce the fact that such carriages are called traps, but they are not WP:RS (clearly) and they are reinforcing something over which there is no doubt.  The article still fails per WP:NOTDICT .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  It is more than just a dictionary definition.  Consider Coupe or Pickup truck .  Both are types of motor vehicle, but there are many variations of both.  The same is true of Trap (carriage) .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a nomination based purely on a current thin state of a stub article and that is not the point of DICDEF.  The word is widely used, at least in "pony and trap" as both vehicle and propulsion.  Yet what is a "trap"?   Does it have 2 wheels or 4?  How does it differ from other types of cart?  What was it used for?  We may not be there as yet, but there is certainly scope here for an encyclopedic article more than a DICDEF, just as we've done for other cart and carriage types.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:HEY .  The article now passes WP:GNG per the included sources.  There is probably scope for a general reorganisation of all of the articles on similar types of carriages, but there is no particular reason to delete this page.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:07, 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
McKinsey Quarterly: Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you please explain how this is self-promotion, an advert, and out-of-date?  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles.  The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself.  It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right.  The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion.  I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable.  It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter.  SchnitteUK ( talk ) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world.  To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD .  RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK.  Passes WP:BKCRIT .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:21, 17 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
Wizardzz: While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for WP:BAND .  InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and United States of America .  InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As is almost always the case with bands reviewed by Pitchfork, there are multiple published works covering the band; for instance, Tiny Mix Tapes reviewed the album, and there is a short bio and a substantial review at Allmusic .  Meets WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 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!  22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:31, 26 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
Shubham Sharma: -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : No reason to delete valid dab page just because there is a dab page for the given name.  Pam D 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, are you saying that it's exceedingly unlikely for an average English reader to ever search for "Shubham Sharma"?  Because otherwise this is useful.  Also, you can use {{ transclude list }} to reduce duplication between those two lists.  -- Joy ( talk ) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's more than one article about a person called Shubham Sharma.  If there's no primary topic for "Shubham Sharma" then there needs to be a way to disambiguate, and a given name list article isn't good enough (note Shubham is a given name WP:Set index article as opposed to a disambiguation page).  See, for example, Kevin Newman doesn't redirect to Kevin ; John Quested doesn't redirect to John .  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:49, 19 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
Kermet Apio: Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Hawaii ,  and Washington .  Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only website with more than a passing mention is My Edmonds News [1] ; has several articles about this person.  I'm not sure that's enough Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:02, 17 December 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I see consistent coverage in several local outlets ( Kitsap Sun , Salt Lake Tribute , Tri-City Herald , Hawaii Public Radio ) that suggest he meets GNG, if narrowly.  WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per user WhinyTheYounger.  Subject was more of a regional comedian but has performed in 47 states and Canada, as well as Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, and Pakistan , and on Sirius/XM satellite radio.  Subject is considered a headlining comedian and has been on Comedy Showcase with Louie Anderson .   -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per user WhinyTheYounger.  His Comedy special on Youtube has 900K views, suggesting notability.  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:13, 30 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
Emily Piriz: Fails WP:NSINGER .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television ,  and Florida .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If she only placed 12th on American Idol , then I could understand redirecting this.  But she also placed on La Voz .  I don't believe that redirecting is the right course for subjects that have gained notability for participating in multiple series.  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't access the Telemundo article but reading the headline I think it may amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and Jpace's decisions.  CastJared ( talk ) 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per norm Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:30, 28 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
Shaun Collier: I do not believe that Ajax's mayoralty is significant enough to automatically award its holder sufficient notability, nor that Collier has otherwise garnered sufficient notability.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada .  SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He has a lot of articles covering his work as mayor including sustained controversies and actions taken during COVID.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ajax is a large enough city (over 100K) to qualify its mayor as notable.  Lots of independent reliable sources referenced in the article.  And even if that's not enough to deem notability, his controversies have made national news; the sources in this article are not just local.  -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Earl Andrew Population alone does not make a city of that size politically notable enough to afford their mayor instant notability by virtue of their office.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, judge the article by its sources, of which there are plenty, are reliable sources, significant, and many in national scope. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliability of sources does not transfer notability.  reliable sources publish stories every day that cover subjects that don’t meet notability standards.  You have to parse the substance of WHAT the stories/coverage assert about the subject and whether that distinguishes them as having notability.  I am pretty unconvinced that the stories cited in this article do that.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 18:28, 9 April 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!  06:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think such mayor's are automatically notable - but he was getting national mentions two decades ago when he was elected to council.  More significantly is the recent national coverage related to his opposition to Doug Ford 's misuse of Minister's Zoning Orders .  I'm surprised this was nominated given the nationally-covered controversy over the Duffins Creek wetland.  Nfitz ( talk ) 23:00, 17 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
Birds of Prey (1973 film): The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews.  Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film ,  and Utah .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Meets WP:GNG .    I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it meet WP:NFILM ?  At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them?   Both are significant coverage.   I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4.  One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia.  SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention."  Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace.  Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now [61] — siro χ o 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is a review at DVD Talk [62] Donald D23 talk to me 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Have enough references of reviews with good coverage.  Strivedi1 ( talk ) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] I have added a couple more references.  There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers.  — siro χ o 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:16, 5 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