hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Otto Spoerri: Almost 100% of the Google results for him are of his obituary.  There is only one Google result from before his death, a passing mention in a 1999 Entertainment Weekly article .  There have been only three passing mentions of him ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) in reliable sources since his death per Google.  There is absolutely no depth to any of this "coverage," if it can be called that.  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film ,  and Entertainment .  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Who said obituaries did not count??? Substantial coverage  in Los Angeles Times , The Denver Post , The Times , The Wall Street Journal , The Philadelphia Inquirer , The San Diego Union-Tribune , Variety (magazine) .... .and that’s only a one-click list....  Please.... - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:25, 21 December 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!  20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's not the first time I've seen complaints about obituaries, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them (at least in the context of notability).  Especially when it's a RS.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:04, 27 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
Soso Baike: No zh interwiki, no Chinese name.  English name appears in a few places according to my BEFORE but only in passing.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Basic confirmation it exists [6] and [7] .  Most hits in Google are wiki mirrors.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to Soso_(search_engine) which briefly references it.   In Chinese Wikipedia this redirects to Sogou Baike [8] but we don't have an article for that.  Oblivy ( talk ) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : From zh:搜狗百科 , it sounds like this was a former name of Sogou Baike , which is surely notable.  If that's right, then the article should be moved to Sogou Baike , or at worst redirected to Sogou .  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep and rename to Sogou Baike @ Mx.  Granger 's suggestion makes sense.   In fact, the Chinese version was moved from Soso Baike to Sogou Baike in 2014 [9] .  Changing my vote to keep and rename.   If a consensus was to emerge around merging with Sogou with a redirect I'd be OK with that too.  Comment .  Interwikis have now been added by User:Yinweiaiqing .  I will be happy to see it rescued, although the sources in the zh article don't seem to be very strong - one is Baidu, one is the company itself, the two others are, well, hard to judge for me b/c of the language barrier.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to the Sogou Baike article is ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 23 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!  19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Sogou Baike , although I remember it under its original branding.  First source at zh:搜狗百科 (the 163 article) is fine; the rest are basically OR.  The permanent dead link on the zh.wp article also just needs a domain name update, but I haven't fixed it.  It's a primary source anyway.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 09:59, 29 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: keep
List of private schools in San Jose, California: Incomplete and uncited article.  777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists .  777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a list of nine Wikipedia articles.  Articles are assumed notable until deleted when it comes to list inclusion.  Basically, it is just a category in list form, and those are usually kept per WP:NOTDUP .  If it drops down to below four or five entries, then I would probably support deletion.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 03:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets the purpose criterion of NLIST as a navigational list.  — siro χ o 05:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 9 entries with their own Wikipedia article.   This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation.  D r e a m Focus 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moral delete (or redirect to the category page, since this has nothing beyond a bare listing) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization .   No navigational purpose is served by its existence.   Why can't public and private schools be on the same page?   Why make a list at the city level instead of the county level?   Too many arbitrary decisions to warrant keeping.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Lists of schools in California All of these wouldn't fit well on a single page.   If the private and public schools in a county fit together, then by all means merge them.  D r e a m Focus 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Useful navigational aid.  Nothing gained by destroying the article.  FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 14:09, 22 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
Dan Reisner: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists ,  and Israel .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5 and 9 are about a sculpture he made, seems to pass as an artist.  Just notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Oaktree is correct.  Reliable sources currently in the article giving significant coverage include The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and The Jerusalem Post.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Okatree.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes the WP:GNG .  New user.  Not sure why they chose to nominate a notable sulptor.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm having trouble finding notable museums that have collected his work, but it isn't necessary; the sources in the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:GNG by providing reliable independent in-depth coverage of him.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Independent coverage is more than adequate.  Kablammo ( talk ) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The editor who started this AFD has a ... bizarre editing history to say the least and I've blocked them as an obvious sock (the quacking is deafening).  Graham87 ( talk ) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking action, Graham87 !  Can you also snow keep?  There are two more discussions in the Israel queue that can use a speedy snow delete.  At one I haven't ! voted, just miss the button.  gidonb ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb : Didn't think of that; will do.  Graham87 ( talk ) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: keep
The Elements of Moral Philosophy: No inline sources and a quick online search found no significant coverage.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:TEXTBOOKS .  This book is the most popular philosophy textbook according to open syllabus, it clearly meets the requirement of "whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - car chasm ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ( edit conflict ) I have found the following sources which are sufficient for GNG: [6] , [7] , [8] .  I would also note that this review of another of Rachels's book begins with: James Rachels's The Elements of Moral Philosophy is one of the most popular philosophy textbooks ever written.  At one point nearly a third of all ethics classes in the United States were using this book .  WJ94 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Reviews in Teaching Philosophy (1993) [9] , (2000) [10] ; review in Personnel Review (1993) [11] ; obituary of author noting its bestseller status [12] , a "popular textbook" that "contains one of the best-known critiques of moral relativism" [13] , a "widely used textbook" [14] , a "famous textbook" [15] .  Jahaza ( talk ) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion.  Clearly fulfills WP:TEXTBOOKS and reliable sources exist.  ULPS ( talk ) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Andre 🚐 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace: For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries.  For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries .  Hence, this article should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, 12 April 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 April 13 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , Lists ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it.  There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There would be as good players.  People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Don’t make rules by your own.  It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not.  The minimum threshold of 25 int.  centuries is an informal guideline.  The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles.  Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG .  Robo Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST , particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage.  103.121.36.100 ( talk ) 03:00, 15 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
Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan: I couldn't find any reliable sources online.  A PROD was contested.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Pakistan .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Coverage exists: The Express Tribune , Daily Times , Daily Ausaf (in Urdu) , Radio Pakistan , APP , mentioned in the book The Snow Leopard and the Goat: Politics of Conservation in the Western Himalayas .  Insight 3 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Insight 3 : Thank you for bringing up the sources.  I have no clue how I didn't see them.  That being said, I had a look through the sources (JSTOR was being really laggy for me so I couldn't see the book source) and most of them seem to be either passing mentions or people from the department speaking.  I'll wait until a few more editors input.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong KEEP Plenty of news coverage exists as shown above by Insight 3 plus the article already has 3 working government websites references.  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:50, 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
Yakuza (band): No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources .  AllMusic citations not ideal .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Japan ,  and Illinois .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17).  "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade" .  Chicago Reader .  Retrieved 2023-07-24 .  and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence" .  Pitchfork .  Retrieved 2023-07-24 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band.  I retract this AfD nomination.  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant coverage.  Fulmard ( talk ) 03:42, 25 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
Joseph R. Volpicelli: Mason ( talk ) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Psychiatry ,  and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC with one article cited over 2300 times, and others cited > 500 times.  Lamona ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't sure that that meets the criteria for highly impactful, as my impression was that they were a middle author on those highly cited papers .  facepalm, I clearly missed this one Mason ( talk ) 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a way to withdraw a nomination?   (I'm still new to new page reviewing)  Mason ( talk ) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: keep
Gryzelda Konstancja Wiśniowiecka: Subject non-notable in her own right.  Nirva20 ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , and Poland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nom who failed to do WP:BEFORE and whose nomination is just a WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE assertion.  The subject is notable, by the virtue of, among others, being a subject of a dedicated biography in Polish Biographical Dictionary , which is even linked from our article.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, by the way, her article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (translated into English) seems to be mostly about (not particularly interesting) palace intrigues/tensions. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article indicates nothing about subject but whose daughter, wife,  and mother she was. Obviously,  I can read the tea leaves on the way this is headed but I stand by redirect proposal based on the article as it is written not how it could be written. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expand article to tell us abou the portrait, from the sources shown which don't seem to convey much. Pam D 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per Piotrus. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:ANYBIO .  And Polish version of the article is lengthy.  —Kaliforniyka Hi!  04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously, per everything that was said Marcelus ( talk ) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above.  Nobody ( talk ) 09:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep fall into WP:ANYBIO .  I'm glad that Piotrus gave a speedy keep vote, even though Piotrus rarely votes to keep in AfD discussions.  1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 05:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Harland Hand Memorial Garden: I don't see evidence of notability, just a handful of local news stories.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in article, source eval: Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >>  1.  Joyce, Alice (March 27, 2002).  "Harland Hand made the most of a hillside with a view".  San Francisco Chronicle.  Retrieved February 19, 2009.  Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >>  2. ^ Eaton, Joe; Sullivan, Ron (2012-07-17).  "Harland Hand Memorial Garden on tour".  SFGATE.  Retrieved 2023-04-17.  Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >>  3. ^ McCormick, Kathleen (September 2000).  The Garden Lover's Guide to the West.  Princeton Architectural Press.  ISBN 978-1-56898-166-6.  Interview, promo >>  4. ^ "East Bay garden tour set for July 22".  The Mercury News.  2012-07-12.  Retrieved 2023-04-17.  // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Reliable sources available.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:28, 24 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