hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
DYXX-TV : Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 07:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network , given that this TV station is located on a major City (Iloilo).  - WayKurat ( talk ) 00:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Station predated GMA's existence and Marcos.  Do they just celebrate April Fool's late in Manila, because these sudden rash of noms (which are not asking for deletion; we're not called Articles for Redirection!) are beyond ridiculous.  Stop creating nominations where deletion is not being asked for.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello MrSchimpf .  Could I have some WP:RESPECT please?  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, AFD is an appropriate place to discuss controversial redirects; see WP:CONRED .  Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Which sources support that the topic meets WP:GNG ?  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG per above arguments.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello SBKSPP .  Which sources are you basing this on?  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I couldn't find any mentions of "DYXX-TV" outside of Wikipedia and mirror sites.  I'd normally go for "delete", but I'd like to hear first from the locals why that is and whether a move/merge makes sense...?  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:57, 10 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
Combatives : The PROD tag was removed and it was suggested that I bring this to AFD.  Undoubtedly, a decent article on this subject could be written but this version seems to be almost all original research on the subject with some bits taken from a military archived page.  It would be nice if editors who focus on the military could take this article on as a writing project but we can't dictate to other editors how to spend their time.  As an alternative, we could reduce this to a stub, keeping just the sections that are supported by sources.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per deletion is not cleanup Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to Stub per nom's alternative suggestion.  At least a stub might attract some editorial attention.  Intothat darkness 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and remove all uncited content.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 23:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to a stub containing only the well-sourced information.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reduce to stub per nom.  I agree that leaving the article as a stub is better than deletion.  CycloneYoris talk!  10:45, 29 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
List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus : Much of the content here is quite arbitrary as is.  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Golf , Lists ,  and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP , WP:NEXIST , and WP:ARTN - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 03:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Also the Jack Nicklaus article is some 11,000 words [6] , so per WP:TOOBIG "Probably should be divided or trimmed".  Whether this particular WP:SPLIT is the best is open to question but personally I don't see a compelling reason to delete it.  Nigej ( talk ) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is certainly some cruft to be trimmed but the majority of the content seems valid and AFD is not cleanup.  The alternative to keeping is not deletion, but merging the valid content into the parent, which in this case is an article that doesn't need to get any bigger, so it's better to keep this split and fix it.  wjemather please leave a message... 10:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perfectly valid WP:SPINOUT article.   This is how it is done.  Category:Career achievements of sportspeople D r e a m Focus 13:18, 17 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: keep
Castolin Eutectic : While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources.  Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain.  TornadoLGS ( talk ) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  TornadoLGS ( talk ) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [96] in particular gives details on them.  Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [97] and [98] .  Scientific testing on some of their products [99] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added.  But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry. -- Assirian cat ( talk ) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for spamming.  MER-C 09:55, 26 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!  01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature. -- Assirian cat ( talk ) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article.  [100] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:43, 21 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
Fairmont State Fighting Falcons : No sourced info so not sure it is worth merging anywhere.  Potentially a redirect to university or league.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and West Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Fairmont State University#Athletics .  Almost all relevant information is already located in that article.  -- MuZemike 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  NCAA athletic programs are virtually always notable.  This team gets extensive and regular coverage and even some of the seasons for just the football team are notable.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The athletic teams get coverage from local sources such as [ [20] ] and [ [21] ].  I'd say this meets the WP:GNG and should be expanded, not deleted.  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11 and Let'srun.  Article should be expanded, not deleted or merged.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11 and Let'srun; NCAA athletic programs, particularly at the Division II level, almost always generate significant coverage.  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 00:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan and Let'srun.  This is a notable program.  The 1967 Fairmont State Falcons football team actually won a national championship.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 03:46, 22 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: keep
Crash Time III : Unsourced.  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Products ,  and Computing .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Several reviews are listed at MobyGames.  [5] Timur9008 ( talk ) 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NEXIST .  It has enough reviews on MobyGames to pass WP:GNG as stated above.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Plenty of reliable reviews listed on MobyGames, meets GNG.  Waxworker ( talk ) 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Identifiable sources exist to satisfy the GNG.  Always good to do a WP:BEFORE when one is able.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 04:09, 27 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: keep
Ghost boat investigation : The bad sources can simply be replaced and removed - not a reason for deletion - not a reason for deletion - not a reason for deletion All of these are fixable and it isn't TNT level bad.  Keep .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 13:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy GNG.  Furthermore, as PARAKANYAA notes nom has failed to adduce *any* valid criteria for deletion.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Law , Transportation , Africa , Libya ,  and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  S5A-0043 Talk 03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Good references.  Within WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sourcing is sufficient.  AfD is not cleanup.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:51, 25 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
WBBI : Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York .  Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although our broadcast article guidelines have tightened a bit, they really haven't changed for known commercial FM radio stations owned by large-scale broadcasting companies like iHeart, and this is notable enough to be kept (though I'd like to see improvement in the article for sure).  There is no result that ends with it just being redirected to the corporate article without any rhyme or reason.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Per Nate.  I also want to mention that I mean, it's notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia without it being redirected (since I mean, it's owned by iHeartMedia ) even though sources and just improvement in general are an necessary thing here.  Also, just a note, it shouldn't be redirected to the corporate article for no reason, because chances are, in some of these cases, they often redirect it to the state list of radio stations.  (In this case, it would be redirected to the list of Radio Stations in New York State. ) mer764 KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c ) 03:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is some SIGCOV in Binghamton paper, e.g. [2] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Sammi; there does appear to be some significant coverage in regional papers.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 18:34, 24 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: keep
Farhan Ahmed Malhi : — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Music ,  and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He is a well known actor.  His roles in dramas has received coverage.  His education and how he started his career is mentioned.  [4] [5] [6] ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] BeauSuzanne , Your comments sound like WP:ATA.  These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG.  Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not talking about Wp:V.  I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] BeauSuzanne , As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG.  Unfortunately, you haven't done that.  The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject.  Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:32, 16 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!  22:54, 16 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!  22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : some of his roles (in the main cast) of notable productions appear to have him meet WP:NACTOR , which is the applicable guideline.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:49, 26 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
Robin Hayes (businessman) : The article is mainly based on the The Seattle Times article.  he is notable for one event , becoming JetBlue CEO FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 12:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Aviation ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  CEO of a large public corporation, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, some of which haven't been cited in the article yet (including BBC.com and Observer.com ).  WP:ONEEVENT does not apply as coverage of his role has been sustained since his taking over as CEO.  DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 18:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:BLP1E does not apply here -- serving as CEO of a large corporation for 9+ years is not a single event.  If so, then many other articles of CEOs (such as Doug Parker , Ed Bastian , and Richard H. Anderson , to name a few other airline CEOs) should also be deleted.  Since this nomination, coverage of the subject in the USA Today , Dallas Morning News , and The Observer has been added, which should help to ameliorate concerns about the breadth of coverage about Hayes.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per edits since nomination .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:17, 18 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
Paul Coia : Possible self-promotion Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs ) 11:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the overwhelming view regarding the previous nomination.  This clearly fulfils WP:BASIC , as it did before.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  Rationale "doesn't really give anything" vague and evidently baseless and if there is an indication of self-promotion, please elaborate.  Mutt Lunker ( talk ) 00:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television ,  and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no justification to keep renominating this article for deletion as it easily passes all Wikipedia tests.  Rillington ( talk ) 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Nothing has changed since the discussion at the first nomination overwhelmingly decided to keep this article.  Nominator seems to really want this article deleted.  Why, I wonder?  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An article on a well-known long-term broadcaster, with a previous "keep" decision at AfD; in such a circumstance, a further AfD nomination should engage with that previous discussion to propose why the decision should be overturned, but this one doesn't.  Since the previous AfD, a WP:BEFORE can also find the October 2022 "Big Interview" feature from the Scottish Sun , looking back over Coia's career (which, as an aside, also includes an anecdote about an even more extreme version of the reaction Scots tend to get when using the word "outwith" in England).  AllyD ( talk ) 17:38, 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
University of Nicosia : It's a for-profit university in the small country of Cyprus with little notability and not many reliable neutral sources to learn about its activity.  Also, looking at the edit history its obvious that many exaggerations or complete falsehoods were edited out, but many still remain.  I propose the article's deletion.  Perhaps it can be rewritten if/when someone presents reliable sources.  Gnkgr ( talk ) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Gnkgr ( talk ) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Cyprus .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is quite clear here: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online."  Just because Cyprus is little don't mean you can pick on it.  In fact, you could argue quite compellingly that the centrality and therefore notability of the institution is enhanced by the small size of the state it serves - particularly as it has over 12,000 students and is recognised as the largest university in the country...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The claim that University of Nicosia is the largest in the country is part of the institution's marketing but has been refuted.  Gnkgr ( talk ) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source for that?  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is a fully-fledged university and we always keep those.  Comments like It's a for-profit university in the small country of Cyprus beggar belief.  So what?  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a real university, though the article reads like a corporate brochure and the unreferenced material should be cut, even as that would make it a couple of paragraphs - David Gerard ( talk ) 12:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Is a real school and meets the GNG, although puff needs to be taken out User:Let'srun 20:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep fully-fledged university meets WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 13:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets notability guidelines for Schools.  I would do a clean up of less pertinent info, but keep for sure.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 12:52, 2 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: keep