hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA: In addition, no major edits to the article have been made since 2018 Saltyeg ( talk ) 05:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just curious.  Saltyeg , that you nominated this article for deletion with your first edit with this account.  Very unusual that you would even know about AFD.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been lurking for around three months here, reading the Teahouse and WP policies.  I decided to make a new account because my old one had my full name on it which I am no longer interested in sharing online.  Saltyeg ( talk ) 04:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : on the fence here; they seemingly have a lot of magazine/newspaper coverage, but it all seems to be mostly brief mentions.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 15:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : firstly, neither dead links nor lack of major recent edits constitute valid grounds for deletion.  But from the more important sourcing standpoint, there's this mid-1970s music journal article published by the American String Teachers Association at the University of Michigan and written by an editor from the Dallas Independent School District , this 2022 article from The Daily Press republished by Yahoo! Finance , this interview of the orchestra's parent organization (Soundscapes) by a Virginian arm of NPR with some coverage of the orchestra, this 2021 audition announcement in a local publication, and this recent local news announcing their holiday concert.  Left guide ( talk ) 02:17, 12 December 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!  07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
WarpOS: A mess of low quality references.  Fails WP:GNG - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources in the Further reading section clearly show notability of the article subject.  Pavlor ( talk ) 04:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pavlor Which of all those sources are RS with extensive coverage of the topic?  Cinadon 36 20:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For this purpose, I would choose: Drummond, Richard (July 1999).  "WarpUp 4.0".  Amiga Format.  No. 125.  Future Publishing.  p. 51.  ISSN 0957-4867.  (full page review)  Krenželok, Petr (January 1998).  "WarpUp your PowerUp?".  Amiga Review (in Czech).  No. 33.  Atlantida Publishing.  pp. 7–11.  ISSN 1211-1465.  (about the PowerUP vs WarpUP controversy)  Not in the article: Amiga Furture, May/June 2015, issue 114, Classic Reflections Part 21 Haage & Partner (history of the company behind WarpUP/WarpOS) Other sources in the article cover mostly the WarpUP vs PowerUP controversy (Dream, AmigaNews), however, AmigaNews extensively cites press-releases by Haage and Partner or phase5 and I have only excerpts of the Dream article.  There may be far more sources of this kind in the various local Amiga magazines (I didn't find Italian or German magazines online), because PowerPC/PowerUP/WarpUP was the Big Thing in the world of Amiga back in the late 1990s.  Pavlor ( talk ) 05:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:41, 24 August 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!  23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in WarpOS#Further reading and the 3rd criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion .  // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 7 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: no consensus
Zsolt Süle: See also Marius Bear , also at AFD.  Pottyantós WC ( talk ) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : AFD Nominator Pottyantós WC has been banned for WP:DE Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - nom made by indefinitely blocked editor.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that a valid reason for keep Very weak keep , maybe a BLP1E case, but keep since nom was made by indeffed user.  88.110.38.249 ( talk ) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not sure it matters that the nom editor is banned since this person does not actually appear to be notable.  He was one of 30 people who took part in a local competition and he did not win or place.  He is 54 and a quick search didn't find anything about a notable career prior to sending in an application for the show.  The article lacks reliable sources about everything other than the competition participation (potential redirect target Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 ).  The Hungarian version of the article also reads like a advertisement, which to me, indicates a lack of notability even within Hungary.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: The status of the nominator shouldn't determine whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, heading towards No consensus right now.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand by my Keep ! vote.  Sources are decent.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 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: no consensus
HCL Sametime: There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , subject meets GNG Wiley book , Taylor & Francis text , Wiley "for Dummies" book — siro χ o 07:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Meets WP:GNG.  2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 ( talk ) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Siroxo.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Kotono Shibuya: The Japanese Wikipedia article for the person has just one cite, insufficient to be notable.  After searching, found social media, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the person.  Article was created on 22 January 2005 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She played rather significant roles in an awful lot of dramas and in various films, so that she probably meets WP:NACTOR , but most of the films and series/TV films have no page in English (they DO have a page on Ja.WP, fwiw, if someone has the courage to link, source, translate.) GBooks allows to verify that, though.  I have no time to improve it as it should now but I would not be shocked if this was kept, and might do it later if such is the path chosen. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 2 March 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!  21:34, 7 March 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!  23:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
International SOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_SOS Pridemanty ( talk ) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Pridemanty ( talk ) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Singapore ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  The nominator has not provided any justification beyond a bare statement that it fails NORG.   There are many independent media citations on the page; even though much of this may be earned media it reflects how prominent they are in the industry.   I've added one more, a journal article.  Note that the first deletion, described by the nominator as having been closed by a sock, was in 2007, at at time when there were just FOUR references, all primary.  The article is substantially expanded .   Should be irrelevant for this AfD.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question to nominator : There have been 2 AFDs for this article prior to this one.  The first one (the sockpuppet one) was closed in 2007, however as far as I can tell the sockpuppet-ing only started a year later and the user was only blocked in 2009.  The other AFD, despite there's only 3 participants, still ended in a keep.  I apologize for my ignorance, but can I ask how does the sockpuppet-ing impact this discussion in any way?  S5A-0043 Talk 01:57, 3 March 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 ) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article is bad enough that I wouldn't dismiss the nominator.  The newspaper archive shows enough mentions that I wouldn't want to delete outright as well.  It appears to be a large emergency assistance service: [25] , [26] IgelRM ( talk ) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
National Biodiesel Board: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:DINC .  You can just stubify it and start over if nobody has been able to deal with the COI in situ.  small jars t c 16:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:DIC is an essay too.  I am not planning to do anything with this article.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:55, 13 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: no consensus
Arab conquest of Kaikan: Another problem with orginal researched articles is their defined timeline, despite having no source for the hoax timelines the authors of these articles love to furnish their own preferred timeline of one, two or even three centuries.  The article topic also seems to lack notability and significant coverage as there are many uncertainty and unknown belligerents.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and Pakistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't this Hilarious that you created urself fake Fictional war articles of Bengali Pala empire (while claim to be Kashmiri) and selecting every fine article for deletion DeepstoneV ( talk ) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) —

Discussion outcome: no consensus
The Seventh Veil (1927 film): Nexovia ( talk ) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Nexovia ( talk ) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not been able to verify the source, but the Juhász cited reference seems likely to be a reliable source?  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a Google book search for ‘A hetedik fatyol’ brings up a bunch of snippets in Hungarian, which I can’t read, as well as a couple in German that look promising.  I’d be sorry to lose an article on a film from this period unless there is genuinely nothing said about it, which doesn’t appear to be the case here.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article can be improved but references on the page seem to indicate notability.  And Mccapra’s comment above too. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." ( WP:NFILM ) -It is the only production directed by István Mihály . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 8 December 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!  08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
KoiKoi Nelligan: Creator has stated that he's played for multiple teams and at college, however this does not make him notable, and doesn't show any significant coverage.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , United States of America ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 14 June 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 23:43, 21 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!  22:47, 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: no consensus
United Professional Basketball League: Let'srun ( talk ) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , Basketball , Kentucky , Ohio ,  and West Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable attempt to locate suitable sources before an article is nominated for deletion.   Has this been attempted, or are you saying that there are currently not enough good sources cited in the article?   That wouldn't be a proper basis for deletion.   Presumably if the league existed and competed, there should be some local newspaper coverage, at the very least, though it might not all be available online.   It would be inappropriate to delete the article unless sources can't be found: the present state of sourcing in articles does not establish the notability or lack of notability of topics.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 12 November 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!  22:53, 19 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm no expert on minor-league basketball leagues, but i found a few sources and content to add to the article. -- Milowent • has spoken 21:51, 27 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: no consensus
Imdad Sabri: Onel 5969 TT me 11:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the current sourcing is pants and I’m not turning up much in Urdu but I did find 1 and 2 and the internet archive has some of his books.  The article creator might have done better to focus on his literary corpus rather than his political positions as he was a fairly prolific writer.   Not a very strong case so far but I’m not really inclined to delete.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:33, 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: no consensus
Banjax: There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough.  It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower.  Boleyn ( talk ) 09:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Seems to have WP:THREE even though they are not Internet accessible.  An interesting group, and the information may not be accessible elsewhere.  Llajwa ( talk ) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus