hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Hiragana and katakana place names: On its face it looks like a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and I can't find anything which talks about this at all.  The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Geography , Lists ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - see the Japanese Wikipedia version of this article: ja:ひらがな・カタカナ地名 ( Google Translate version ) This is not an indiscriminate list.  The Japanese article discusses this topic in greater depth.  There have been municipal summits about this topic.  There have been political disputes over the use of hiragana or katakana writing for place names (instead of the more traditional kanji ).  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to add any of those sources?  The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the Japanese Wikipedia article: 村山研一 (12 2009).  “市町村合併と市町村名称の選択”.  地域ブランド研究(5): 19.  Discusses this phenomenon in the case of 3 cities: Sakura , Midori , and Tsukubamirai 日本の特別地域 特別編集58 これでいいのか 山梨県p29,鈴木士郎, 佐藤圭亮 - 2014 Discusses municipal mergers and resulting renaming issues.  See our own article also: Municipal mergers and dissolutions in Japan#Naming of new municipalities Regards, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's another one: Hosokawa, Naoko (5 February 2021).  "Katakana and Japanese National Identity. The Use of Katakana for Japanese Names and Expressions" (PDF) .  Silva Iaponicarum (56–59): 119.  doi : 10.12775/sijp.2020.56-59.7 .  Retrieved 1 November 2023 .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close per A. B. .  C avarrone 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources.  FOARP ( talk ) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment It's clear that there should be an article with this name, but I have my doubts about whether this will become an adequate article on the subject.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep surprisingly enough, seems to pass GNG.  AryKun ( talk ) 13:17, 4 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
Walter Voit: Sources in the article itself are PR, non-independent, or are not actually about the subject of the article.  The further attempt to establish notability based on the fact that the subject is a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering falls down flat - there were 170 other people inducted at the same time as Voit.  Exemplo347 ( talk ) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Businesspeople ,  and Texas .  Exemplo347 ( talk ) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See the citations and h -index at https://scholar.google.com/citations? user=MnnWfvQAAAAJ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The case for WP:PROF#C1 looks clear.  As for the AIMBE, they claim that their College of Fellows represents "the top 2% of medical and biological engineers" [26] .  If that really represented 2% of their membership then it would be selective enough for WP:PROF#C3 but I am skeptical because why wouldn't they say so more clearly?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - To the nominator: I do not know how you can tell if it is a Paid PR vs. COI (the subject could have easily created their own page).  Hence, you should not post such arguments when nominating, without actually having evidence.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the subject has almost 5000 Google scholar citations and meets WP:NPROF .  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:45, 16 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
South West Rugby League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (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/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:43, 18 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
WCB Wasafi: Original reasoning was: Blatant WP:PROMO ; fails WP:NCORP .  While on second look the promo is not obvious, the second part of the reasoning still holds.  Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Tanzania .  Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Since the prod reasoning was repeated, I will repeat my contestation: "Certainly not blatant promo, since the founder appears notable, and with six potentially notably signees could qualify as an important indie in WP:MUSIC's sense. It's possible there is walled-garden activity here, but it's not clear to me (a nonexpert on African pop) that's happening".  Certainly, there is no reason for this to be at AfD (to create a redlink here), since at worst the applicable action would be to merge into the founder's article.  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The record label qualifies for inclusion based on the founder's notability and its potential impact within the independent music scene, aligning with WP:MUSIC guidelines.  While the presence of walled-garden activity is uncertain, it does not justify deletion without concrete evidence.  PushaWasha ( talk ) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - according to [46] it is the largest label in Tanzania.   Additional coverage at [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] .   It is fairly clear that the label is of significant cultural importance in Tanzania, that it meets GNG, and would qualify as "one of the more important indie labels." 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Record label certainly appears notable enough, especially after seeing 78.26's findings immediately above.  CycloneYoris talk!  09:25, 20 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
Jack Ashton: The current sources in the article are focused on his relationship and family and I don't think they go into enough detail about him to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and United Kingdom .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and 5x expansion of this former stub, which had 1,595,752 page views since it was first created six years ago.  The article now has a sizeable Career section covering Ashton's major television roles (beyond Call the Midwife ), as well as his theatre performances ( A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar and lead in Strangers on a Train ) and his starring role in a US film.  We also find out what his real name was and how he chose his stage name.  The most in-depth articles about him do incorporate quotes of Ashton himself, but also include facts that were presumably researched and/or fact-checked by journalists and editorial staff, including Radio Times , The Bristol Post , and MyLondon , and there are numerous reviews of his stage roles (e.g., The Times and What's On Stage ), and one by the The Independent Critic about Instrument of War .  (NB: Not sure if you were using Google for WP:BEFORE , but increasingly we're finding that it's not fit for purpose, particularly for single-parameter searches; Bing seems to perform much better in that regard.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suonii180 Respectfully request that this nomination is withdrawn.  There are many viable candidates for deletion that actually do require attention, but this is not one of them.  I have now invested the time to improve the article, and it seems fair not to waste anyone else's.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now clearly passes GNG thanks to the hard work of Cielquiparle .  21,673 pageviews in the past 30 days shows that our readers want to read about the subject, and we now have an article that does it justice.  Edwardx ( talk ) 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep great work Cielquiparle Earnsthearthrob ( talk ) 20:04, 29 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
Gestione Governativa Navigazione Laghi: I did not find more sources in Italian language edition either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 10:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Transportation ,  and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NTS .  Regional transportation company, serving the three biggest lakes in Lombardy .  -- Broc ( talk ) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Broc are there secondary sources required to satisfy NTS? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Shushugah ( talk · contribs ) just a very quick Google News search from the last few months brings: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] . The company has been around since 1957 (see [34] ), I'm sure plenty more sources can be found. -- Broc ( talk ) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Extremely significant transportation company.  Plenty of sources available.  Meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep This book chapter [35] provides excellent coverage of the company (in English).  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eluchil404 thank you for this!  I will withdraw my nomination.  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 04:44, 26 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
Fredrick Nwabufo: Broc ( talk ) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria .  Broc ( talk ) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism.  He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public.  I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia.  Thanks.  AromeArome ( talk ) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL ?  Broc ( talk ) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG .  He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist.  Article needs NPOV cleanup, though.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agree with what AusLondoner said above.  Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:24, 24 April 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
Choe Yeong-kyeong: Does not satisfy GNG.  777burger user talk contribs 22:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Korea .  777burger user talk contribs 22:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the ko.wiki article has more sources and a Google search suggests there are additional sources that demonstrate notability.  Mccapra ( talk ) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Here's one RS, the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture : [9] .  Under "참고문헌" you can see the refs it has there too to Joseon historical records.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Apprentice User:777burger should better read 777burger's letter soup manual.  BEFORE could be a good starting point.  Pldx1 ( talk ) 16:07, 29 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
International Association for the Study of Dreams: I am unable to find significant independent coverage in RS; a total lack of results on Google Scholar is particularly concerning for an academic organization.  On Google Books there's some results, but they all appear to be from people affiliated with the organization, e.g. [13] .  Interestingly, one of the most prominent authors in the search results is one Clare Johnson ( [14] ), who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article but whose Google Books author bio mentions leadership of this organization.  Absent clearly reliable sources, and noting the classification of these books as "self-help" texts, I'm a bit concerned that we may be laundering a fringe organization, and/or that there may be more than one organization by this name, one more reputable than the other (but neither of them notable).  Dreaming (journal) could be a potential WP:ATD target, but the prior concerns of reputation laundering give me pause.  Both this article and Dreaming (journal) cite this website to claim that the peer-reviewed Heidelberg University publication IJoDR is published by IASD, but the actual website makes no claim to affiliation with IASD, and its Editorial Team masthead makes no mention of any figures listed at this article.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Psychiatry , Psychology ,  and California .  signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia.  Have listed it at the article rescue squadron.  Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The association is certainly not fringe , nor is their journal, Dreaming .  Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Discussion outcome: keep
Mayfair Capital Investment Management: As they no longer have a wikipedia page either, we need to have this one removed so that it does not confuse clients as Mayfair Capital will cease to exist from the 15th May 2023.  I am the marketing associate at Mayfair Capital hence why I am asking for this to be removed on behalf of the company.  MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment that’s not a reason to delete.  The article can simply be updated to include the renaming with a red link to SLAM.  If an organisation was ever notable it remains notable for Wikipedia purposes even after it ceases to exist.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I understand that but as Swiss Life Asset Managers do not have a Wikipedia page, we would prefer to delete as it will confuse clients.  A lot of the information on the current page is also now very dated so if it were to stay up, the majority of would need to be deleted as it's irrelevant.  It would make it easier if the page was taken down for that sake.  MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 05:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sorry but that’s still not a reason for deletion.  We’re not here to keep clients updated but to provide an independent and authoritative record of a company even if it no longer exists.  I’m happy to edit the article to make clear that the information is not current, and if you can give me links to a couple of sources for the name change I’ll add them in.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’ve updated the article as I suggested above, and am therefore ! voting to keep it.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok great, thank you very much for making those updates!  MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep per WP:CSK#1 and/or WP:CSK#3 —no valid deletion rationale is given.  I do not have the time to dig in to the history to see if the company is actually notable, so I make explicit note that this ! vote is solely based on the lack of valid rationale advanced by the nominator; I have no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on substantial grounds.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:40, 20 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
Sun Arcs: If there were a couple more reviews or even coverage of singles then I could probably give this a pass, but at the moment I'm not even finding that and I think what little is here is cutting it too close.  Perhaps more will come later in the year, but for now I don't think this is enough.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth noting that the article is only just barely not an orphan because of its listing at List of 2023 albums .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums does not list a minimum number of sources, but two valid reviews is sufficient for me.  ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While there isn't a set minimum of sources, in my experience most editors seem to go by WP:THREE as the rule of thumb.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep It has more reviews that other albums/songs/books I've seen in AfD.  Willing to give it a pass with the two listed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So the artist doesn't need to have an article first before any of his albums or songs get one?  Americanfreedom ( talk ) 16:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not required and I don't like doing biographies that much, so I didn't bother.  ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums says, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline ."  Generally, editors take that to mean that even if the artist is notable and just doesn't have a page of their own, you can still make the album page.  I think it'd be pretty silly if that weren't the case.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh, well that's good to know!  Thanks!  Americanfreedom ( talk ) 23:02, 7 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!  05:08, 14 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