hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Fatih Yıldız: Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently.  BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Asia , Iraq ,  and Turkey .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability.  Some are cited in the article.  Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:02, 11 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 ) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Vanderwaalforces , please don't make assumptions about what I might know.  [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] are a few examples that go to notability.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971 .  You should read comments properly.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD.  Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know."  I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources.  I'm done with this discussion.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job.  BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk 23:46, 23 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: no consensus
Peranbu (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG have added references from The Hindustan Times [14] The  Times of India [15] , [16] , [17] and News 18 [18] and further there is Tamil language coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:09, 10 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!  06:10, 17 June 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!  06:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep most of people know about this series.  you nominated this is actually a well known one.   It does cite it's notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.196.216.129 ( talk ) 18:26, 26 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
Benisha Poudel: Fails the general and singer-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Nepal .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This article was ruled a "soft" delete on September 23, just two days ago.  If I am reading the history correctly, it appears that the article's creator simply removed the AfD notice and carried on, and the article was never actually deleted.  Now it has been nominated for deletion again as if something different will happen this time.  See the exact same course of events at David Shankar , with the same article creator involved.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it was deleted and then requested to be restored via WP:RFU . This request was fulfilled (which is why the AFD tag was removed). I then created the 2nd AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One question remains: what is the likelihood of anything different happening this time? I'm undecided as a voter and it appears that few others are interested, so therefore I'm seeing wasteful bureaucracy . Sorry for all the copy/pasting. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep - There are lots or reliable, notable refrences on article, which clearly meet WP:GNG and and singer-specific notability policies.As per information please read.  [39] 2 3 4 Endrabcwizart ( talk ) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 3 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!  00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] procedural keep & Comment - keep as per |1 , this was the actual main reasons, & I would request to all( for participate this afd and close. ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart ( talk • contribs ) You have already ! voted keep once, please strike one of them.  Your link is not reason for a procedural keep when @ UtherSRG : was not the nominator.  Star Mississippi 21:06, 13 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
Cityline (ISP): Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable part of the Runet history, meets WP:GNG .  For example: Chapter "9. Нескучный Провайдер «Ситилайн»" in the book "Ощупывая слона. Заметки по истории русского Интернета", 2004 by Sergey Kuznetsov A section about Cityline in an article about Runet history in RFE/RL : https://www.svoboda.org/a/30204033.html#%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD Substantial coverage in contemporary media, for example, ru:Компания (журнал) issue from 21.06.99: https://www.compromat.ru/page_24318.htm -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 04:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:34, 4 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!  20:11, 11 August 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
Vettichira: ~ Spworld2 ( talk ) 15:11, 20 March 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 March 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India .  ~ Spworld2 ( talk ) 15:11, 26 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!  07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , AFD is not cleanup .  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:54, 27 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!  05:59, 3 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep : though I am incompetent to decide what the ultimate fate of this article is, it does not appear that this article is about a place that doesn't actually exist, a la WP:GNIS , nor a duplicate article of the same place under the same name.  There are extant references to a place with this title [21] [22] , so at the very least a redirect should exist to the district page.  Mach61 13:46, 10 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: no consensus
Sanjeev Venkat: Appears to have a long career, but nothing for notability here.  Not sure NBIO is met.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Various lead/main roles.  Passes WP:NACTOR .   As nominator himself indicates, plenty of (flowery) coverage directly about him.  And won various awards.  Needs improvement, though.  So Keep and improve . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:39, 18 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
Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club: Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable.  Other than Wikipedia mirrors and some directories, can only find one external source about the club here .  Article is also completely unsourced and has been since 2009.  Elshad ( talk ) 13:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Firearms ,  and England .  Elshad ( talk ) 13:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:32, 25 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!  06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article has been largely unsourced since its inception, but that does not appear to be for want of extant sources.  A search of the British Newspaper Archive turns up more than 100 articles, out of which a strong Wikipedia article could undoubtedly be built.  As for the claim that "Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable", the first sentence of the article appears to hold the answer: "the Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club is one of the oldest clubs belonging to the National Small-bore Rifle Association".  Indeed, it appears to date to 1903.  -- Usernameunique ( talk ) 06:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 06:45, 8 January 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, NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:26, 15 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
Lee Harris (figure skater): Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet WP:NSKATE and  I am also not seeing much coverage on this person.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 15:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Pretty clear-cut case of a WP:GNG pass, and WP:SPORTCRIT at the very least.  Yet another poor nomination.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:13, 7 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!  06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources from the Windsor Star and Columbus Dispatch meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:36, 20 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: no consensus
Magdalena Leska: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Poland .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 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!  02:34, 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: no consensus
Dragon Ball Collectible Card Game: The article just relies on primary sources and commercial links.  Xexerss ( talk ) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan .  Xexerss ( talk ) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Dragon Ball#Collectible cards per nom; this page is solely based on primary sources and has a ton of fancruft.  Link20XX ( talk ) 23:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/rename This article appears to cover both the 2008 game and the 2017 game ("Dragon Ball Super Card game") which is apparently basically a revision to the 2008 game?   Dragon Ball Super Card Game appears to be notable.   There is what appears to be an independent book ( [37] , and a fair bit of coverage by relevant fan sites ( [38] , [( [39] , [40] , [41] including reviews [42] .  I'm no subject expert, but it looks like the 2017 game is notable and it makes sense to also have some coverage of the 2008 game.   That said, the current article has lots of problems and could stand to be hugely trimmed.  Hobit ( talk ) 21:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or redirect .  There is something notable here, I hope, but given the current woeful state of this (terrible referencing), WP:TNT is frankly an option too.  [43] and [44] suggest that the topic of Dragon Ball card games may be notable, and such an article can indeed discuss various games from that franchise (there is also Dragon Ball Z Collectible Card Game which looks only a little bit better...).  The current article could redirect there.  But such an article does not exist yet.  A redirect target to consider could be Dragon_Ball#Collectible_cards .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PS. I'll ping some editors that may be interested in this: User:Mindmatrix , User:Bermicourt , User:BOZ , User:VickKiang . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also @ Leitmotiv Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - There are likely many articles available for citing as this is a popular series.  It needs a lot of TLC, or as Piotr said, some TNT.  Strong oppose to redirect.  Leitmotiv ( talk ) 23:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 10:16, 22 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
Ramayan circuit: Completely unnecessary promotional WP:CFORK from Swadesh Darshan Scheme .  Serves no purpose other than to make reader chase links.  // Timothy :: talk 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:41, 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: no consensus
Erker's Optical: Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and Missouri .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's this [11] , descendants of the founder's company mentioned here?  Not really enough to keep the article.  What's used for sourcing now is a single source, not helping notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep It appears that some sources (esp. older ones) refer to the company as variations of "A.P. Erker & Bro Opticians".  I've added a number of references which provide varying degrees of information but given the age of this company there is a strong possibility that sources may only exist in print.  HighKing ++ 19:06, 11 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, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is enough history and referencing (found by HighKing) to support notability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:12, 20 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