hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Full Belly Project: Only a handful of gnews hits and mostly from local press as per WP:AUD .  Fails WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina .  LibStar ( talk ) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Universal nut sheller : Organization seems to fail WP:ORG.  Owen× ☎ 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Don't have time to look into this now, but I deprodded it because there are ~155 hits in Proquest for the quoted term, at least some of which looked to provide significant coverage.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 20:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Innumerable high quality sources on gnews alone.  I added three, sufficient to show that it satisfies GNG, let alone NORG.  These are world-wide sources, not just local, not just regional.  All are SIGCOV.  Also see this google scholar search .  Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:01, 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 ) 20:54, 16 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, Daniel ( talk ) 00:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Abhi the Nomad: From my searching, I couldn't find anything that looked valuable, and the lack of significant additional material since that tag despite at least one editor actively working on the page suggests it might not exist.  Doesn't appear to pass GNG or any part of WP:MUSICBIO .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Tamil Nadu ,  and Texas .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP fails GNG and BIO.  Article is sourced with promo.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk 11:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Chicago Sun Times , AllMusic , Austin Chronicle , Austin Chronicle and NPR so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The interviews in the Austin Chronicle (above) provide some independent analysis and are not just letting the artist talk.  See Wikipedia:Interviews BruceThomson ( talk ) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources shown by Atlantic306 above, which show that WP:MUSICBIO is met.  — sparklism hey!  09:42, 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
The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song): It also appears to have only barely charted in one country.  Yellowfrog81 ( talk ) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't have time to look through all of them, but the Internet Archive has a long list of potential sources which could be of use to this article.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I looked through the sources on the Internet Archive and it seems that most of them only list very basic information about the song (e.g. "The Belle Stars came out with a new single called "The Entertainer"") and do not discuss it in depth. I only found one article which provides a description of the song's music video, but I do not believe that information would give the Wikipedia article adequate substance. Yellowfrog81 ( talk ) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Analog coverage issue here, but signs point toward it meeting GNG. From the article, [46] A bit of SIGCOV about how the band was glad to work with a woman producer who let them play their own instruments resulting in this single. [47] Here is a blog quoting a review of the single in a magazine [48] . Here's another blog that suggest the issue of that magazine it was printed in. [49] Seems pretty likely this review exists. "Visual coverage" where where a youth magazine published the lyrics with a photo and some art [50] — siro χ o 05:02, 29 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
Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy: Thewikizoomer ( talk ) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Journalism ,  and Andhra Pradesh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to specify, how is this individual not meeting notability requirements?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG , also WP:NPOL .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:13, 19 June 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!  22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing.  Carrite ( talk ) 04:35, 1 July 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
MOS:VARS: Fram ( talk ) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Fram ( talk ) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Incomprehensible and unnecessary.  Coretheapple ( talk ) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't think we need a redirect for this term.  I wouldn't even mix the five of them up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moot .  Never mind; this has been mooted by changing it to a redirect to WP:VARS , which is probably how I should have done this in the first place.  As for the original nomination above, back when this was a DAB page: the entries don't all point to the same page; "clutter the search bar" seems to be a meaningless or at least inapplicable phrase; pretty much no page is in much if any use the moment it is created (and this AfD was opened almost instantly); and while DAB pages in pseudo-namespaces like "MOS:" that are not true namespace aliases like "WP:" are rare, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits them (especially for a pseudo-namespace created with affirmative consensus for it, as "MOS:" was, to stop hogging all the sensible/memorable "WP:" shortcut strings for MoS targets).  So, this wasn't a stellar deletion nomination, but an WP:IDONTLIKEIT knee-jerk reaction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a bit clueless of people to have created an entire fake namespace in the encyclopaedia namespace when everything from WP:MOS/ENGVAR to WP:MOS/VAR has been there for the taking all along.   Sub-pages work in the project namespace.  Uncle G ( talk ) 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [shrug] Wasn't my idea, and this isn't a referendum on a community decision dating to 2006.  Given the lack of many if any notable real-world things with names that start with "MOS:", it's ultimately harmless.  I would be more concerned about pseudo-namespace redirs that pretty much no one uses, yet which have an enormous possible number, e.g. "CAT:", "T:", "H:" (well, that one's pretty limited), and "P:" (see WP:NS#Pseudonamespaces ).  I can just imagine someone getting the idea in their head that every category should have a "CAT: Foobar " redirect for it, and so on.  The "MOS:" ones are used all the time, but the others are just claptrap.  Same with misspelled versions of the "MOS:" one, like "MoS:" and "Mos:"; we generally delete these at WP:RFD because they are disused clutter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:01, 13 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!  23:14, 19 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
Nancy Stockall: UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Citations shown at Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=%22Nancy+Stockall%22 are probably adequate for notability for a researcher in special education.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per citations found by Eastmain which seem sufficient in a medium citation field; full professor at reputable institution.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:02, 23 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!  19:49, 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: no consensus
William Nagle (figure skater): PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:01, 11 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!  03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An obit here , as well as coverage in the New York Times here and here .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:39, 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!  02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per source presented by Beanie fan.  I think it's unusual nominating articles because they are short.  WP:NSKATE is an additional Wikipedia policy.  If per the sources they the articles won those awards, then he meets WP:ANYBIO and sources per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG .  please do run WP:BEFORE and not bypass it.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:02, 24 May 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!  04:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Jerald D. Slack: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois , Indiana ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : adding sources from Newspapers.com, feels likely this will pass WP:GNG with a bit more work.  -- Cerebral726 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , due to these sources added: [42] [43] [44] [45] . Seems like we have enough, plus there seems to be more out there, to meet WP:GNG . -- Cerebral726 (talk) 14:15, 30 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
Jokaru: For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Asia ,  and Maldives .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage seems to show it’s notable.... .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV requires an article being significantly covered in reliable sources WP:RS .  I still don't find that in the article as the sources aren't reliable.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no reason to consider The Press unreliable and it's a review.  Muniavas has various articles about the film ( https://www.muniavas.com/46563 ) (definitely not great journalism, but I see no reason to consider it plainly "unreliable").  The following inclusionary criteria might also be met; "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited."  But if everyone thinks it does not apply and sources are insufficient, sure, redirect to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film should indeed be considered.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  23:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I also wasn't to note Mushy Yanky has agreed for the redirecting to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film and I am fine with it.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  07:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, Mushy Yank(y) (:D) would favour a keep but is not opposed to the redirect if everyone else thinks the sources are insufficient and/or the inclusionary criterion is not met.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to meet GNG with sources cited in the article.  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 08:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Kamil Białas: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep – Sources I got in my Google search may be related to significant coverage: 2010 , January 2011 , and December 2011 .  Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 10:06, 12 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!  03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:37, 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!  02:38, 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
Ponni (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Soft Delete : there’s a source from The Times of India [17] and News18 India [18] .  There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing. -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both these sources listed (source 1 and 3) are just routine coverage of the show, they both contain the exact same content with the layout: Introduction, which includes a list of actors Plot summary Interview from the protagonist List of other serials going to premiere Source 2 is just a Tamil version of source 1, source 4 is a self-published source, and its expertise is unknown, and and source 5 does not mention Ponni at all.  I cannot see how this is notable at this moment.  Karnataka ( talk ) 14:55, 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!  23:30, 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!  23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:08, 25 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
Azanti: Boleyn ( talk ) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Nigeria ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Billboard is minimal coverage.  Given the flowery language used in the Nigerian sources, I'd prefer one more good source to push this over the top.  This pops up [6] but I haven't confirmed if it's the same person or not.  I'll review it later, or if someone else wants to, please feel free.  Almost notable...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I debated sending this to draft or keeping it, I think it's at notability, just barely.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (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 ) 16:52, 31 October 2023 (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 ) 16:54, 7 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, Daniel ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's close, but appears just notable enough to retain.  Uhai ( talk ) 21:10, 16 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