hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Early life and work of Clint Eastwood: Specialist information such as this can be read in an autobiography if the reader wishes to know.  There have been two previous AFDs but I believe content forks such as this are now very much out of favour and a new AFD is required.  I don't have any prejudice against merge and delete.  Desertarun ( talk ) 09:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I think you should have a prejudice against merge and delete because that would remove attribution from the merged material.  Thincat ( talk ) 10:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noted, struck.  Desertarun ( talk ) 10:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clint Eastwood has over 10,000 words of readable prose, which is above the suggested amount for considerung splitting at WP:Article size .  Given agreement at its talk page, the main article should be reduced in size before merging this stuff in.  Thincat ( talk ) 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this sort of article is just overdetailed fancruft.  Gugrak ( talk ) 16:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We have early life articles on some very notable people, Clint Eastwood I would consider notable enough.  This has a few thousand views a month.  It could be condensed in places to reduce the cruft concern but I think we're better off as a resource having more detail than the main article on his background, and there are plenty of sources which document it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Clint Eastwood article is 72686 characters.  This article is 25037 characters.  This is just necessary and appropriate splitting.  I do not think the nominator has made any claim about this not being a notable topic.  I also do not think "content forks such as this are now very much out of favour".  Lightburst ( talk ) 19:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I would say we don't need an "early life" article for Clint Eastwood nor most subjects, but I would say that when the article gets to a certain size, splitting it is a useful navigational aid as discussed in Wikipedia:Splitting .  I don't see any evidence that splitting has drastically changed from an accepted outcome at the second nomination in 2019, but is "now very much out of favour" either.  Jacona ( talk ) 15:22, 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: keep
Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983: seems fan made, no real substance, not really a WP:N thing.  New3400 ( talk ) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 8 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 8 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!  01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing found in Gnews or Gnewspapers.  There might perhaps be coverage in British newspapers at the time, my Gnewspapers seems to be limited to American/Canadian sources.  I'll keep looking.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Well, it happened [38] but those are photos of the event from a newspaper.  This has a little info [39] , one of the seven notable events at the area [40] , [41] coverage from the football club about the event.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And this [42] Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT .  There's coverage across 4 decades.  Book published by Hachette from a couple years ago [43] with several pages of sigcov.  Birmingham Mail had coverage ~30 years after [44] , Birmingham Post had a small amount of coverage 22 years after [45] .  — siro χ o 02:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG WP:EVENT .  Re "article detailing a concert that happened in villa park" well, yeah, that's what it's meant to do.  I've never really understood the argument "fan made" - if you have no interest in a subject matter, why bother creating an article?  — Maile ( talk ) 13:11, 15 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
Mary and Robbs Westwood Cafe: MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 01:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : while the dailybruin article includes an interview in-part; most of the article documents the cafe and amounts to SIGCOV.  There is no indication that dailybruin is not a reliable source.  The fact that a source is local is not an issue.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This cafe set some kind of longevity record by operating in the UCLA neighborhood for 83 years.  The KCET source is a pubic broadcasting TV channel in Southern California, and gives an informative write-up about how the cafe has evolved from the 1950s era one-counter soda shop in a drug store, to a full restaurant today.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Food and drink ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion.  There is no requirement that I am aware of in WP:RS for non-local.  Lightburst ( talk ) 20:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Not the most delightful to read article about a diner-type restaurant ever (it could use some TLC drawing on sources already included), but sourced and notable topic.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:14, 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
Public interest technology: MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I can tell, and I am currently researfching PIT, writing a book on it and looking at it from the POV of the SciPol Wikiedia project, there are a couple of books on it, an NGO network and a university network supoorting it, with lots of webpages covering it, and that's it, as it only started in 2020.  What does not help is that the public Interest main article is crappy.  My gut instinct based on that is to add a decent summary of PIT to the public interest main article and then delete the PIT article.  Still, I'd like to think about it for a while.  Johncdraper ( talk ) 08:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems to allude to the fact that the public interest main article needs work and expansion, not that this article shoulde be deleted.  There are several topics not covered on public interest other than the technology aspect.  As for the field being new, the growing work around it, specifically in the academic work, might be reason enough for it to continue growing on its own.  Darrowlykos ( talk ) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:10, 13 May 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!  06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning to keep - Variety of sources in the article are reliable and dedicated to the subject - so this is definitely a thing .  As an umbrella article public Interest has a short summary and links here - which should be perfectly fine.   Also - Johncdraper has done some cleanup since the nom.  Resonant Dis tor tion 20:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC Keep per WP:RS and WP:GNG albeit the article seems to need an overhaul.  For example, Bruce Schneier is not even mentioned or in the refs, he does a lot in this area using this term, e.g. see here .  I don't think the article is promotional but haven't checked it thoroughly.  It probably needs expansion as well as some restructuring, e.g. structuring by field of technology (e.g. Software, etc).  Note that many sources use this terminology, however many about relevant topics use phrasing like public interest alternatives for important AI tools 1 despite also being related.  It would be good to transclude a brief summary with a wikilink to the article at Public Interest but merging this article to there would be too detailed.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 09:40, 23 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
Nitin Dubey (singer): Almost identical to content previously deleted and salted at Nitin Dubey * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians ,  and Chhattisgarh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because many good reliable sources exists, such as 1 , 2 , 3 .  4 and 5 .  BTW, there were several dead links, which I replaced with archive.org version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandSimon ( talk • contribs ) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW, previous page was deleted in 2012, so it cant be identical after 12 years.  There is so much more news since then.  He has played over 2500 shows in India.  He is most popular representative of Chhattisgarhi folk singing style from chhattisgarh india, so meets Criteria #7 from WP:MUSICBIO .  Also meets criteria #5, has released albums on 3 prominent Indian labels Ultra media & entertainment , Shemaroo Entertainment , and Saregama .  RolandSimon ( talk ) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I read the English language sources and they satisfy GNG.  I've no reason to believe the non-English wouldn't check out making this person highly notable.  The proper name page needs unsalting, the original salt took place 12 years ago and the world moves on.  Desertarun ( talk ) 19:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and Move to Nitin Dubey (due to unnecessary disambiguator).  - Meets GNG with a bunch of secondary sources that are independent, reliable, and provide SIGCOV.  In relation previous article that was deleted in 2012, all of the sources have been published since then.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 02:48, 2 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
Samira Winter: I can't find any in-depth coverage about her, and most of the citations in the article and on the internet are about her band .  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil .  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the LA Weekly piece is significant coverage here as is the Vice piece here , and this AllMusic bio of her band here .  There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every one of the sources I can find, including the LA Weekly article, discusses the singer within the context of the band.  Even within her own article here on WP, the albums are from the BAND "Winter," not the PERSON "Winter."  If we had an article on the band, I could easily be persuaded to merge and redirect, but I don't think this singer has enough notability on her own to have a standalone article.  Joyous!  Noise!  18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Winter (indie rock band) (or similar, since there's also an American death-metal band named "Winter").  The coverage seems focussed on the band rather than the individual.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the proposed move, which will require a re-write.  If that happens I'll do the rewrite if no  one else volunteers, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Winter (indie rock band) or something similar, and rewrite accordingly.  Note that the band also has two album articles here: Supreme Blue Dream and Ethereality .  I am not so sure about notability for those albums, but they have some basic media mentions indicating that this project is a band called Winter that is headed by Samira W. The band has some additional reliable sources found by Atlantic306 above, so there can be a basic article on them as a band.  Samira W. does not qualify for one based only on herself.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:47, 18 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: keep
Duke Maximilian of Württemberg: The article even contains phrases like "It is unknown where he spent his childhood..." and "Little is known about his ... life at the moment" to highlight its triviality and nonsignificance.  DrKay ( talk ) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany .  DrKay ( talk ) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : No "inherent" notability with this nobility; by this point, Württemberg was ruled by a king, and as such duke appears to be an honorary title.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passing WP:NPOL .  Could also pass GNG outright, I'd like to see  what his entry in the Biographisches Handbuch der württembergischen Landtagsabgeordneten 1815–1933 says.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete was unable to find any sources, checked Google, Google Scholar, and the newspaper archives.  Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as a member of the Estates of Württemberg he meets WP:NPOL , surely.  Ingratis ( talk ) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now.  I can see an argument that he scrapes by on WP:NPOL grounds, although I given what the article says about his attendance it seems unlikely that he was a notable political figure.  The best place to cover him I think would be an article such as Second Silesian Line, House of Württemberg or Carlsruhe Line, House of Württemberg covering Duke Eugen of Württemberg (1758–1822) and his descendants who may not be notable enough to justify a standalone article.  That's how Maximilian is treated in sources such as [3] and the literature it cites.  But no such article currently exists, so per WP:PRESERVE let's keep the cited material we have.  Jfire ( talk ) 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's important to keep information like this on Wikipedia because it provides historical context and helps us understand the lives and contributions of individuals like Duke Maximilian.  By preserving his story, we can learn about the royal lineage, cultural influences, and societal roles of that time period much like his involvement and part in Estates of Württemberg of which he should meet WP:NPOL .  It allows us to appreciate and study the past, which is valuable for historical research and education.  Azarctic ( talk ) 1:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC) It may benefit you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:03, 4 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
Puerta Real (Granada): I can't find non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources, only mentions of the name in the context of directions and addresses, but never descriptions in detail (not in English, at any rate).  The article defines it as a neighbourhood, but it is not an official district I can identify: downtown Granada is called simply Centro (e.g. see Spanish Wiki articles Distrito Centro (Granada) or Distritos de Granada ).  Even the Spanish version of the article isn't promising: the only somewhat detailed sources are a tour agency website and a blog post, neither of which counts as reliable .  This topic could be mentioned in another overview article or a future article about the Centro district, but unlikely to be helpful and verifiable on its own.  R Prazeres ( talk ) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This surprises me, while the Spanish sources are mostly blogspots the book in the bibliography on the well-developed Spanish language page has six pages devoted to Puerta Real, and there are many possible Spanish language sources.  [55] [56] [57] along with hits from academic sources [58] .  SportingFlyer T · C 06:48, 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!  22:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sourcing as indicated by SportingFlyer seems adequate.  Ingratis ( talk ) 04:48, 28 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
James Barclay: Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage."  There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR .  Toddst1 ( talk ) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article needs a ton of work but the citations already listed prove notability with multiple reviews of his works in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal and the listing in Gale's Contemporary Authors .  However, the citations already in the article barely scratch the surface of what's out there.  A quick search turned up a ton more reviews of this author's work in places like Booklist , The Bookseller , Midwest Book Review , and many other places.  And one review I found in The Bookseller, which I've now added to the article, called Barclay "One of the UK's most popular genre fantasy authors."  As it states at WP:AUTHOR , notability is proved is a person "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  Barclay easily meets this standard with his collective body of work as proved by being the subject of multiple reviews. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agreed with SouthernNights - article needs improvement (and some advances have been made) but multiple reviews of Barclays works means article meets WP:AUTHOR #3.  Resonant Dis tor tion 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep as totally meets WP:AUTHOR #3.  Plenty of reviews there.  I've yet to see a writer in Contemporary Authors who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR.  Funny I wasn't pinged when I was heavily editing the article at the time of nomination to clean it up a bit.  Shrug.  Other articles related to the author are better candidates for nomination.  DiamondRemley39 ( talk ) 10:21, 22 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: keep