hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Calade: A search doesn't reveal much at all.  Seawolf35 T -- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  Seawolf35 T -- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not always "harmonious", Anglais!  The sources in fr:Calade are fairly convincing, and the le Bec en l'air book seems fairly in-depth too.   Looking around I find books on pierre sèche that also cover this subject, and the odd archaeological reference on Persée , that indicate that even the French Wikipedia has not exhausted the sourcing on this subject yet.   So this is a totally unreferenced (and somewhat misleading) stub, but with, since the French Wikipedia article has done, clear scope for expansion on the subject.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added a tag to let French speakers know that they can expand the English page with the information of the French Wikipedia's page on the subject.  I honestly don't know why it wasn't there in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbie ( talk • contribs ) 22:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary .  Owen× ☎ 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, fails GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 16:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Anyone willing to review the French sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify , as the sources on the French page look convincing and show notability.  I also checked and the Italian version of the page also sources too.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:48, 31 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
The Improvement Association: No evidence of GNG type coverage which is probably inherent to it being a 5 episode podcast that occurred during 2021.  Coverage is review of it and that it was nominated for an award which it apparently did not receive.  North8000 ( talk ) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the cited sources are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST .  There are full reviews in multiple independent sources listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 23:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did some searching and found more sources in CNET , The Guardian , The Atlantic , Vulture , Indy Week March 2021 , Indy Week April 2021 , The Olympian , Oprah Daily , Paste Magazine April 2021 , Paste Magazine December 2021 , and Sheer Luxe .  The News Observer covered each individual episode: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and North Carolina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Vulture, the Financial Times and Deadline are all RS.  Article could be expanded.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:35, 13 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
Zhang Weida: UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and China .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have expanded the article with what information I can find at the moment.  There is enough on his playing and coaching career on Google Books to lead me to believe that he passes GNG.  Cobblet ( talk ) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, seems to have sufficient notability and referencing coverage.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:02, 27 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
Whatever (Kygo & Ava Max song): I believe it also could also potentially violate WP:NOTBLOG & WP:NOTNEWS .  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 01:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Three of the four sources here are no good regarding notability (Kygo's TikTok is primary, Genius lyrics pages and Forbes Contributor articles are unreliable), but the EDM.com article and this one from Exclaim! are both reliable and sufficiently in depth.  It's not much, but with those two I think this article meets GNG.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did some cleanup earlier to clear out the unreliables, and now I've even replaced the TikTok source with a secondary.  I think this article turned around nicely.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are some relevant sources, such as Billboard and VG , however, the title of the article should be " Whatever (Kygo and Ava Max song) ".  I also fixed the format so the article follows Wikipedia's format guidelines and added more references and relevant information.  Jvaspad ( talk ) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  VG now covers its initial performance in streaming charts.  The same newspaper and another also did capsule reviews .  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep looks like this was just created too soon before achieved any success on the charts and before any sources came to light.  DanTheMusicMan2 ( talk ) 22:31, 26 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: keep
Blue MC: A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep artist has won an APRA Award for her song writing.  I've added content and references.  Passes WP:MUSICBIO.  shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 23:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, in light of improvement I will withdraw nomination.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:18, 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: keep
I Heart Movies: Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GMA Network (company)#I Heart Movies : per nom.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Founded sources for the article: [70] [71] .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ.  They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GMA Network .  Both the existing sources and the articles listed above read quite like promotional pieces, especially with links to the channel itself at the end of the reportings.  Other news articles that I found are pretty similar in tones as the ones above.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 19:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NTV with reliable sources indicated by ThisIsSeanJ , as well as the ones in the article.  ASTIG 😎 🙃 01:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Superastig ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion.  ( diff )  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it's sourced well and deletion isn't being asked for.  Nate • ( chatter ) 04:26, 16 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
Big Smoke Burger: It doesn't stand out like other burger chains like Five Guys.  It is not a large chain and there is not much media coverage about it.  I do not think it is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.  747pilot ( talk ) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Canada .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs ) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger (2nd nomination) : “ Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources . Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources (with the exception of the QSR Magazine and The Canadian Business Journal sources, which are still reliable and independent). These sources are not advertorials ; I find it very difficult to believe that these media companies were paid by Big Smoke Burger to publish these articles. North America 1000 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] References Financial Post The Globe and Mail Toronto Star The Canadian Business Journal Manhattan Digest New York Village Voice Gulf News QSR Magazine ” Cunard ( talk ) 07:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Cunard.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:17, 24 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
2024 Lochem bridge collapse: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news.  WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip.  Abductive ( reasoning ) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  An event being in the news does not make it notable.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move and repurpose to Nettelhorster Bridge .  The bridge itself and its plans to be may be notable, and the collapse can be integrated into that article.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now or rename into Nettelhorsterbrug and don’t hurry to delete.  It’s a recurring topic in all the Dutch national news sources.  It’s highly likely the event will have a long aftermath.  As its seem as a main disaster in the Netherlands, it’s likely to fulfill WP:EVENT.  82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and/or potentially integrate into article about the bridge.  Nom cites WP:LASTING which actually states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as likely LASTING and rename/rework through a separate procedure.  This nomination is focused on the references instead of on the sources in defiance of NEXIST.  gidonb ( talk ) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING .  waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:59, 27 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
Astral Rejection: DarklitShadow ( talk ) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  DarklitShadow ( talk ) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has reviews from AllMusic , Alternative Press , and SLUG .  Those three should be plenty enough.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the provided reviews.  I chucked out a badly sourced section.  Some of the article in its current state is still questionable.  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided above.  A Newspapers.com search shows up a few more sources as well.  I think it's safe to call this a GNG pass now.  Schminnte [ talk to me ] 10:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment and @ User:Geschichte : questionable is okay in light of documentation found, no reason to put an article through AfD but rather through the 'Edit' button.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:33, 17 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: keep
Winged Waltz: I don't know that Metal Storm is a reliable source, let alone notable itself.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Sweden .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, Metal Storm is listed on WP:RSMUSIC with a discussion from 2011, and this review is marked as staff.  However, the article doesn't have much going for it beyond that and I couldn't find anything additional, so I think redirecting to October Tide would be more appropriate.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Keep page with two reliable sources.   If it cannot be kept, it should be merged into October Tide .  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see this and this , which covers the significance of the subject and also a review , all from reliable sources, of which I believe it's enough to keep the article afloat.  And yes, " Metal Storm " is a reliable source until proven otherwise, nominator should see WP:RSMUSIC .  dxneo ( talk ) 07:37, 19 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!  20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : 2 reliable sources is enough to establish notability.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - reliable and good sources.  WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Singerband: Cannot find any mention of the village in any of the Indian 2011 census tables nor any other information on google demonstrating WP:GNG .  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Census for 2011 gives 5 different parts of the village titled "Singerbond" or "Singer Bond" with total population of 11,293 thus meeting WP:GEOLAND .  §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ { Talk / Edits } 07:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your investigation.  I somehow missed this and therefore retract my nomination.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will close this, then, but I will also quote a very poetic sentence here for posterity: "During the monsoon season the condition of roads are pathetic".  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:45, 6 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: keep
Paul Christiano (researcher): There are two RSes, one of which is an interview with a personal friend and the other is from a single press tour in July which supplied almost all the RS coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE .  Neither is a biographical piece.  The article has many other references, but they're all primary.  Request for better sourcing to address the issue on the talk page for two weeks, no response; PROD removed without addressing the sourcing deficiencies.  What are the three best independent third-party RSes supplying significant biographical coverage to the requirements of WP:BLP ?  - David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America .  David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , California ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hi David, I didn't see the message you put up on the talk page.  I think Paul Christiano meets the following criterion from WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  He's first author of "Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences" and co-author many other RLHF-related papers, which are extremely highly cited and a core technique used in training large language models like ChatGPT.  See his Google Scholar here .  Additionally, he is featured in an article in Time's list of 100 most influential people in AI .  Enervation ( talk ) 08:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as evidenced by recognition on cover of TIME magazine (one of 28 faces) and feature article in corresponding issue about the TIME 100 Most Influential People in AI (TIME 100/AI), as well as the Fortune magazine article which nominator agreed counted toward notability on the article Talk page.  In addition, the 2017 New York Times article "Teaching AI systems to behave themselves" did feature Christiano alongside another colleague at OpenAI.  These have all been added to the article now.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely now meets GNG with the additional material added during the afd.  Thriley ( talk ) 20:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep