hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
U1DB : Pepper Beast (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Pepper Beast (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Quick google search revealed at least two reliable and independent sources with significant coverage: this and this .  And it's not developed by some random developers, it's from Canonical .  I'm not saying that it should inherit notability from the company, but I think that the sources I provided here allow the subject to meet WP:NSOFT .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:20, 6 January 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!  21:35, 13 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
Splint (programming tool) : Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here .  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage.  The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage.  The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability.  Are you sure this article should be kept?  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:51, 28 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!  02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.  — WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:30, 1 June 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!  04:14, 4 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, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:01, 11 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
Greg Schiemer : Most of the supplied sources are not WP:SIGCOV about him.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO; his works and instrument building is described in independent reliable sources.  shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 06:54, 2 September 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!  01:08, 7 September 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!  01:03, 14 September 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
Owen Buckley : All I found were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 ) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and England .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided : Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:15, 2 May 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 ) 18:10, 7 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!  23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I lean to delete as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:38, 18 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
KTOU-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The refs should have been added then, but there's a reason this one never made it to the K04QR AfD: I found a few from the 1997–2000 period.  Unfortunately that's it.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 15:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References Keep : Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article are all secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV about the station.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NCORP.  Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Sources in the article are all mill news about operations, the type any station would receive.  Sources mentioned above: #3 is mill news about the changing in the station name; #4 mill news announcement about the start of operations ; #5 mill news about the sale of the station.  Nothing meets WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 5 February 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 ) 04:01, 13 February 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, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:48, 21 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: no consensus
Dee Carstensen : Fails WP:MUSICBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and New York .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 16 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!  06:15, 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!  06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG.  Here's sources for GNG NYT SIGCOV/review AllMusic review more than a passing mention in an encyclopedia of music more than a passing mention in Billboard SIGCOV in a doctoral dissertation with at least one citation We also have some decent coverage here that is not independent: Billboard coverage with a couple quotes from subject more Billboard coverage with quotes from subject — siro χ o 06:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The NYT is a blog discussion of the columnist's playlist, with about a paragraph for this artist.  Hardly sigcov, somewhat reliable.  AllMusic is fine.  The first Billboard article is a photo caption, very "passing mention".  Rest of the sources are about as useless for proving notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gsearch only brings up Spotify, social media and Soundcloud links.  All non-useful for notability.  Coverage above is trivial mentions of the subject.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NYT blog is definitely sigcov, describing the way the subject plays harp, the way the subject sings, production, relationships, diagnosis, etc.  Via WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  — siro χ o 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the cited doctoral dissertation is SIGCOV, not useless for proving notability.  — siro χ o 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this Billboard piece is significant coverage here and continues on another page, there's also the AllMusic review and the doctoral dissertation, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:23, 2 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
Adi Oasis : I cannot tell whether this passes notability, but as I can tell from the comments of the reviewers.  Before search shows primarily stories on her releasing songs and albums, and sources listed are rather mostly interviews and videos.  Toadette Edit!  15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 2, 3 and 4 are listed as RS.  Seems ok, some PROMO concerns but we can edit those out of the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:10, 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!  22:36, 19 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
Irakli Abuseridze : Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reason for Nomination: All available citations are profiles.  Does not meet WP:NSPORT .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's clear no WP:BEFORE has been done on this one.  Other language Wikipedia's have WP:GNG passing sources.  There is lots of coverage of his election or non-election as president of Georgia rugby, plus there's coverage of his extensive career (3 World Cups, over 80 caps for a reasonable rugby nation and European career).  WP:NOTCLEANUP in action here also.  Just because the article is not sourced, doesn't mean it's a reason for deletion as it looks to be clear that sourcing exists, even in the most simple of searches.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In fact I did search for other sources and when doing so, I did not see significant coverage.  There is this article , but it is brief.  Do you see anything else?  If so, please post the links or add to the article.  Shinadamina ( talk ) 08:13, 13 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!  23:00, 15 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
Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy : The promotional tone wouldn't be as much of an issue with independent sourcing to address it.  Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Poland .  Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same as last time, primary sourcing or non RS sites.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Such a lack of sources that the first 3 are a primary site, wiki mirrors and the NYT search that shows it has no coverage in the newspaper.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Cross wiki promotional spam, yes.  That said, this survived an AfD on pl wiki that I started a while back ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:05:30:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach ) with the majority there concluding that despite the tiny size etc. it is officially recognixzed and listed on the lists of museums supported by the pl gov't.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:57, 3 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 ) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : are our notability standards more stringent than those of the 45 other language wikis that have a page about this government-accredited museum?   The poor writing and sloppy sourcing are certainly making it difficult to endorse the article in its current form, but that's an argument for rewriting, not deleting.it.  Owen× ☎ 00:09, 11 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
Christianné Allen : Subject fails notability .  See, e.g.: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A — WP:INVALIDBIO Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event.  In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event.  Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.  — WP:1E An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life.  If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context.  If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.  — WP:PSEUDO Thewritestuff92 ( talk ) 15:02, 13 June 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 June 13 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:40, 13 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!  22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless there is a valid reason to include coverage of her in either Rudy Giuliani or Giuliani Partners .  (In which case, merge per nom.)  Neither of those articles currently mention her, and I don't think that shoehorning one BLP into another purely for the sake of retaining content is really a great practice.  Absent some indication of encyclopedic significance it might just be better to let this one go.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:11, 21 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!  22:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - not sure why she received so much attention but sources appear to give her enough coverage for notability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:35, 5 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
Braden Olthoff : Joeykai ( talk ) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV at [ [30] ], [ [31] ], [ [32] ] and [ [33] ].  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of recently located sources, perhaps from the nominator.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , seems to be a lot of buzz about a pine-tar incident (not to the point of 1E, but a factor in considering one of the smaller publications above), but I'm convinced that the TP-NOLA articles are very in-depth and secondary, and the WDSU coverage is suitably in-depth.  Would it be better if there were more widespread coverage?  Yeah, but I think this meets the GNG under a generous reading of WP:THREE .  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to nominator: Joeykai , please explain when creating an AfD nomination.  See WP:ATA with special attention to the WP:JUSTNOTABLE sections.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:28, 23 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
Los Carayos : No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 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!  23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is significant coverage in: Culshaw, Peter (2013-05-09).  Clandestino: In Search of Manu Chao .  Profile Books.  ISBN 978-1-84765-640-7 .  Dupont, Brice (2022-04-22).  Manu Chao, l'intégrale: Toutes les chansons expliquées (in French).  Librinova.  ISBN 979-10-405-0631-7 .  Jfire ( talk ) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 12:39, 27 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