hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ma Hunkel: 🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nominator doesn't account for the existing reliable sources cited in the article: Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre by Peter Coogan (2006), American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1944 by Kurt Mitchell and Roy Thomas (2019), and American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969 by John Wells (2014).  These published sources demonstrate notability for the character.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep.  Sources abound.  This character has a notable place in history as DC's first costumed superhero even if she was a parody.  When the nominator "couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE" [I assume the missing word was "find"], where exactly did the nominator look?  The article includes some excellent sources already.  For example, many scholars treat Peter Coogan 's book as the definitive work on exactly what a superhero is.  Did the nominator search for Red Tornado?  (I realize it can be difficult to distinguish references to her from mentions of the modern android version of the Red Tornado.)  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:53, 1 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
Season of the Sakura: Fails the general and game-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Video games , Computing ,  and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's likely that the vast majority of any coverage is in paper sources, given the game's age.  But, the article creator never included any and the WP:BURDEN is on the maker of an article to prove notability.  In English, there is very little to be found, with Mobygames only listing a single contemporaneous review.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  I was able to find is a >200 word review in dead tree  magazine, Animeco #9 Winter 1998, page 31-32.  Magazine has an editor-in-chief/masthead.  — siro χ o 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment BugBug , a Japanese adult gaming magazine, appears to have a spread's worth of coverage (a lot of it NSFW images) in its June 1996 issue, pages 56-57.  Dunno about its reliability, but from Google searches it's claimed to be one of Japan's longest-running gaming magazines. -- Laukku TheGreit ( Talk • Contribs ) 09:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to the two sources Laukku found above, I found additional coverage in the Spanish print magazine Loading Extra #3, pg.  24-27.  Honestgamers published a review of the game (note: outlet seems to be marked as "situational" at WP:VG/S , not sure how this would affect a game review where subjectivity is expected).  This game was bundled as part of the JAST USA Memorial Collection, where slightly more coverage of it can be found.  Season of the Sakura also appears to have been one of the subjects in The Impact of Telepresence on Cultural Transmission through Bishoujo Games.  , a 2005 paper published on behalf of Temple University.  It seems to me that there are sources out there, they just need to be integrated into the article.  FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in addition to the above theree's an article on Vice here . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:GNG — siro χ o 09:14, 1 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
Cups (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving Suit of goblets back to Suit of cups , where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.  Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of Suit of cups .   The latter is a disambiguation between Cups (suit) and Suit of goblets .   And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either.  Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge .  These are two distinct topics.  Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes.  So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards.  They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover.  The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc.  We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do.  They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit).  HTH.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once.   Feel free to close 'em.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 08:34, 15 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
Michael Habeck: Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and Germany .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; and rather expand with the German Wikipedia page, whose filmo as a start, for example, allows to verify he does meet WP:NACTOR for his multiple significant roles in notable films/series.I am not saying his notability comes from having other WP pages but from some of his numerous roles, some being significant.  Which roles?  for example, in international productions, Feppo in Lexx and Berengar in the Name of the Rose .  But also lead roles in Robert Sigl 's School's Out, and Der Templer , to name just a few.  Coverage exists (or here for example.  Also notable as voice actor.  FWIW, willing to add those sources and expand the page when I have more time. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update .  I started improving the page.  See for yourself. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] .... it’s in the page but he received a Grimme-Preis ......- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability has been established via the improvements Mushy Yank has made.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , is now acceptable.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:27, 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
Arun Goel: No sources used in the article, none found either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I suppose there was an issue with the WP:BEFORE search, because sources covering this individual were easily found through a Google search.  I think the sources I added to the article very clearly establish the notability of Goel as an article subject; I'd suggest withdrawing the nom ( WP:CLOSEAFD ) to save some valuable AfD resources.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Oaktree b :) Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has changed since it was nominated, perhaps the electoral commissioner is notable, but I'm not sure.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are now 8 sources from 6 different publications in the article, all of which provide detailed coverage of Goel's appointment and the subsequent Supreme Court case.  On what basis is this individual not notable?  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I don't think the electoral commissioners meet WP:NPOL on its face, but I do think it highly likely that the 3 Election Commissioners of India are notable.  There are only 3 of them and they appear to oversee elections in one of the most populous democracies.  That being said, someone does need to expand and improve this article.  The current sourcing may meet WP:GNG , but there isn't much actually written with the sources in the article.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, referencing looks sufficient.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per nom.  It passes the WP:GNG as all the presented references in this article seems to be reliable and independent to the subject.  Fade258 ( talk ) 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clear failure of before .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Arun Goel holds the position of the Election Commissioner of India, which is a significant public office in the world's largest democracy.  This makes him notable in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and government officials.  Bash7oven ( talk ) 15:14, 20 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
MinIO: The article is primarily written based on GitHub's readme description and MinIO's documentation page.  -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Citations added. Flurrious ( talk ) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems notable to me, but perhaps I'm too close to the technical niche MinIO targets.  The coverage given to it by TechCrunch, Forbes, Blocks & Files, Diamanti, and The Register (all cited in the article -- maybe Flurrious just added those?) seem like significant coverage in some depth to me.   I'm going to nab a copy of the article in case you decide to delete it, but I hope you decide to keep it.  TTK ( talk ) 22:41, 31 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!  22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Source by source (of the ones not clearly non-independent), the TechCrunch piece is an interview with one of the founders of the company (and therefore not independent), the Forbes article is written by a non-staff 'contributor' and therefore not considered reliable per WP:FORBESCON , the Diamanti piece is essentially just a how-to article that happens to use MinIO (and so not significant coverage), and The Register only mentions MinIO in passing as an example of open-source object storage (and so not significant coverage).  The Blocks and Files article looks OK to me, but we need more than one source to meet WP:NCORP .  Tollens ( talk ) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Tollens for the feedback on sources.  Added another reference from Computer Weekly.  Flurrious ( talk ) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, didn't see that one when I did my search.  Looks good to me – since there are two sources appearing to meet WP:SIRS , changing to keep .  Tollens ( talk ) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  More than enough coverage to support notability.  Owen× ☎ 09:42, 8 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
Crow Village Sam: Nice little story, but this guy lived in a tiny town and didn't really do anything notable and its largely unsourced.  Rusf10 ( talk ) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Crow Village, Alaska I found the one source that is listed in the article and the guy has an interesting life but he doesn't pass WP:GNG .  He does give a lot of history of the area and it is recorded in the source, not enough for an article but enough to move some of the content over to the Crow Village, Alaska article.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska .  Rusf10 ( talk ) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  I've added more info but being a major ethnographic informant for Yup'ik culture and founding a community are both extremely notable.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Strong keep .  per Yuchi Indigenous girl ( talk ) 17:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per changes by Yuchitown.  oncamera (talk page) 02:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Now that the article has been expanded, and more relevant content was recently added by Yuchitown.  Seems decent enough for keeping.  CycloneYoris talk!  23:21, 4 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
Talisman City: Article has been tagged for notabilty for 3 years.  Article was created in 2003 so nobody is working to fix it up Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Well, reviews from Games International and Shadis are noted, for starters.  There may be more.  BOZ ( talk ) 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I started this article, so it would make me sad to see it deleted.  But whatever's better for Wikipedia is best.  There is a new expansion for the latest version of Talisman that could be added to the article, but of course, that's all moot if the article's deleted.  The article is just about the version for the Second Edition of the game, but Talisman is now on the Fourth Edition.  The editions has significant differences, as do the expansions, such as City .  — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the expansion cannot stand alone as an article then it's probably better to merge cited info back to Talisman (board game) .  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I think the above reviews plus http://www.boardgame.de/reviews/talcity.htm (which is niche but looks reliable) probably gets us over the WP:N bar.  Editorially it might make sense to merge it back to the main game--I'm not sure we need a separate article for this expansion.   I'm 95% sure I played the original back in the day...   But keep and discuss merge on the talk page is where I'm at.  Hobit ( talk ) 03:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP I have added relevant comments from the Shadis review and from a review in an Italian magazine, which when combined with the review from Games International , I believe firmly establishes notability.  Guinness323 ( talk ) 07:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323.  BOZ ( talk ) 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in the end, somebody was working to fix it up.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:14, 18 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
Anthony Apodaca: Not notable.  DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 14 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!  06:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He has a lot of patents [20] , not sure what to do with that.  He has been nominated for multiple Visual Effects Society awards including but not limited to winning an award in 2013 [21] for Outstanding Visual Effects in a Special Venue Project and a nomination 2018 [22] and I think there are more.  More importantly(?), he has been awarded an Academy Award (in 1993, for science and engineering).  [Here https://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2009/Volume-32-Issue-2-Feb-2009-/Everything-You-Ever-Saw.aspx ] is one source that mentions the Academy Award.  There are a number of book references as well.  I see a lot of sources that call him Tony or AA instead of Anthony.  Anyway, there's a lot more there and I think an Academy Award is hard to overlook.  I'm not familiar with the SNGs for movie productions and graphics software development, but I think this should be sufficient.  Jacona ( talk ) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's not insignificant as an author, see gScholar.  [23] .  — Jacona ( talk ) 20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ANYBIO for verifiably winning an Academy Award, the most well-known and significant motion picture awards in the United States.  — siro χ o 06:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and the Academy Award.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:41, 28 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
Andy Lloyd (rugby union): Primefac ( talk ) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , England ,  and Wales .  Primefac ( talk ) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is some coverage out there, although searching is difficult given the common name he has.  I'm surprised that there's not more coverage here as he's a Welsh international, and scored on his only appearance.  Perhaps @ RodneyParadeWanderer : or @ PeeJay : will be able to dig up more.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there’s enough info on him to make a more complete bio, between his time with Bath, Ospreys, and in management.  I can work on it shortly.  RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have made significant updates to the profile using sources available online and webarchive.  I feel there is enough content to verify notability.  RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The coverage seems sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG .  The guy played more than a half-century of matches for the Ospreys, quite a few for Bath, and is even a Welsh international.  He's notable.  – Pee Jay 20:24, 30 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