hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Million Dollar Round Table: ~ T P W 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Is discussed in a peer-reviewed study here [8] , plus with other coverages in Gnews, I think we're ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here [9] , second article from 1949 helps, rest are also coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep This is a well-known organization that has been covered by scholarly sources and industry publications.  I added some citations to the article, including an external link (can't access the full text) of a McGraw-Hill book about the organization.  There's more out there but this was a selection of quality sources.  Oblivy ( talk ) 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: I've added two citations, one to Perrin, The Incomparable Salesmen which is a book-length study of MDRT members.  That's the "peer-reviewed study" (probably not) cited by @ Oaktree b above.   The 1949 article is paywalled.  I also took the opportunity wikify the article.   The Perrin book along with any of citations 3, 4, or 5 should be enough to meet WP:NORG .   The book "Flock of Eagles" is useful for the history but it's published by MDRT which probably disqualifies it for notability.  Oblivy ( talk ) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b and Oblivy.  Passes WP:ORG / WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:25, 3 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
Tango Live: Shellwood ( talk ) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems pretty notable.  Discussed in many secondary sources.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable, has demonstrated non trivial coverage.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems notable, able to find coverage.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 00:06, 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
Angelo Leaupepe: All I found was routine transfer news 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , etc. ) JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and New Zealand .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's a few bits on this one, such as this and this , which I think is just enough for a weak keep.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like the first website is some sort of upstart sports blog with a staff of university students ( 1 ).  Also, the publishers of the second source, the Melbourne Rebels , are directly affiliated with the subject's former team, Melbourne Rising .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some sigcov does exist in Italian sources such as - padovaoggi.it (more than routine) Jevansen ( talk ) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) * [ reply ] Keep - Meeting GNG 1 and 2 Adding to the discussion above, Hitro talk 19:23, 25 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
Alfred Cowles: Reads like a genealogical entry.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Economics , Colorado , Connecticut , Illinois ,  and Ohio .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Influential figure in the field of econometrics who easily meets WP:GNG .  Not entirely accurate to say "good sourcing is lacking", as one of the best sources was already listed within the article at the time it was nominated.  (That would be Colin Read's The Econometricians: Gauss, Galton, Pearson, Fisher, Hotelling, Cowles, Frisch and Haavelmo (2016) , published by Palgrave Macmillan. ) Clearly no WP:BEFORE search was done, as Wikipedia Library and JSTOR turn up hundreds of academic articles about his work.  Yes, the article requires cleanup but these are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, and there are many other channels on Wikipedia to suggest articles for improvement.  Request withdrawal of nomination to avoid wasting other editors' time.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cielquiparle.  Clear WP:GNG pass.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:36, 14 March 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!  23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Passes WP: GNG .  I can find from the cited sources WP: SIGCOV .   All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 21:56, 18 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
Andi Irfan: I was able to find this writeup in a Tribun Network local paper but otherwise can't find any significant secondary coverage.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify – As WP:AtD .  Svartner ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability.  I didn't receive the ping of Das osmnezz as they did not sign their post (meaning a ping would not work).  Giant Snowman 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Svartner : , @ GiantSnowman : , I found [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , among many more Indonesian sources.  Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight which gets lots of media coverage.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, Das osmnezz's sources do look like they establish notability to me. I'm happy to have this closed as keep .  I expect that the above pings did not go through due to the lack of a signature, Svartner , GiantSnowman .  signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem for me, as I said previously, these top-level players in Indonesia would tend to have established notability, whether in the medium term, due to the relevance of the sport in the country.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Das osmnezz , I would appreciate if you could share what search terms you used to find this coverage; I would not have opened an AfD if I had come across them.  signed, Rosguill talk 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 15:20, 16 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
Playermaker: -- Bosecovey ( talk ) 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes NCORP from my prospective. Sources are not that bad either, and above is also fine. Govvy ( talk ) 10:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 09:20, 18 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
Schooner Fare: ~ T P W 14:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is significant independent coverage of Schooner Fare over the years that meets the #1 criterion of WP:BAND : "Folk and Traditional Elements in an Emerging Professional Art World: Regional Music in the American State of Maine" in International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music , Dec 1990 (vol 21, no 2) [23] ; 1989 The Berkshire Eagle (MA) [24] ; 1984 Longview News-Journal (TX) [25] ; 1989 The Reporter (WI) [26] ; 2004 Sun-Journal (ME) [27] ; 2001 Sun-Journal (ME) [28] ; 2006 Kennebec Journal (ME) [29] .  (If article is kept, I will expand it with these sources.)  Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Schazjmd 's reasoning.  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Schazjmd including journals and newspapers and there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here .  Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the demonstration of reliable sources.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:20, 25 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
Jagdish Lal Ahuja: This specific person (however noble their goals might be) was only ever reported on for getting the Padma Shri award for his social work in feeding patients in Chandigargh which (imo) would not have rose to the prominence that it had without the award.  Sohom ( talk ) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  Sohom ( talk ) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep agree with your rational.  But, the page of Padma Shri awardee can't be deleted.  -- Gazal world ( talk ) 21:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  BLP1E is written primarily to avoid a NOTNEWS problem.  This individual's claim to notability isn't the news coverage as such, so I don't think that's a good argument here; rather, both notability and news coverage are a consequence of the Padma Shri award, which I believe is more than sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #1.  However, the coverage is not wonderful, so this isn't as clear-cut as it would be if we could write a more substantive bio.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 03:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes ANYBIO as he was awarded Padma Shri.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  03:30, 25 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
Khulna Shipyard: M.parvage ( talk ) 08:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Many references can be found, such as this one: https://www.dredgingtoday.com/2022/02/18/khulna-shipyard-builds-four-dredgers-for-biwta/ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is Press-release, fails WP:SIRS .  Thanks for understanding M.parvage ( talk ) 06:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I added some additional references.  The article in Dredging Today is not a press release.  It was written by a staff writer, Eldin Ganic, according to that web page.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added three sources as well, including two that extensively cover the history of the shipyard.   This is a situation where a good WP:BEFORE exercise could have been carried out before bringing the nomination.  There are dozens of scholarly articles and even more web cites discussing this subject at various levels of detail.  Even if notability was not obvious from the article as it stood several days ago, per WP:NEXIST notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article .  Oblivy ( talk ) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added to Talk:Khulna Shipyard half a dozen independent, reliable, secondary sources which demonstrate that that topic does meet WP:NCORP .  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:29, 13 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
John Farnsworth Wright: only sourced to an obituary.  ltb d l ( talk ) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Economics ,  and United Kingdom .  ltb d l ( talk ) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as internet search did not discover any sources other than the obituary to establish notability.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 15:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  That obituary appeared in The Times .  A check of the Times Digital Archive shows that it is a full obituary.  We have always considered an obit in a major national newspaper to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia.  The Times only gives full obits to notable people.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ necrothesp : since when?? ltb d l ( talk ) 11:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since when what? Since when did we consider an obit in a major newspaper conferred notability? Since forever. There is long consensus for this . Why on earth would Wikipedia not consider people to be notable if the main British newspaper of record did? Another example of the contrast between Wikiworld and the real world that some editors seem to champion. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Times obituary should be enough, but for those who worship every letter of holy WP:GNG and need to see multiple in-depth sources, I added to the article several published reviews of his book.  Because there is only the one book, it isn't quite enough for WP:AUTHOR , but we're going by GNG instead.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets WP:GNG per arguments of Necrotheshp and David Eppstein.  Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 08:31, 27 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
Peter England: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep (or failing that, merge/redirect with Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail ).  The nominator's rationale (promotional text, poor references) are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems.  In my own WP:BEFORE I was able to find and add a number of additional sources (some primary but other independent and seemingly reliable).  And I've removed some of the unsupported/quasi-promotional text.  In honesty I can't get behind an outright "delete" recommendation (certainly not based on the rationale given in the nom).  Guliolopez ( talk ) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With added sources, I agree with keeping the article.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep One of the oldest clothing brands in India having multiple references on reliable sources.  Meets WP:SIGCOV .  Dalai60 ( talk ) 05:48, 4 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
Dorotheus of Athens: Seems to be a run-of-the-mill priest.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Greece .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : subject appears real based on this .  Archbishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church are not "run of the mill" priests but rather the highest ecclesiastical officials in territories that cover often hundreds of thousands faithful; see WP:NBISHOP for a discussion of how this pairs with biographical notability standards .  Note that the Greek language article is indeed sourced.  This is not a case of BLP, as the subject is very dead.  I see no reason to delete outside "the article is currently unsourced", which looks to be easily fixed.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Natg 19 : I have added two sources to the article.  Neither are stellar, but serve to adequately establish that Dorotheus was a real figure and served in the capacity described by the article (as well as providing an account of his death).  I would encourage you to consider withdrawing this AfD on the grounds that a modern Archbishop of Athens and All Greece –who served as the head of the Church of Greece –almost certainly satisfies the standards laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people) .  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 03:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to overload this, but please also see the essay section WP:CLERGY .  Additionally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuhanon Mar Meletius demonstrates a recent case where a less significant bishop was AfD'd and kept on general notability.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 03:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Pbritti.  Mccapra ( talk ) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per Pbritti.  Not "a run-of-the-mill priest" -- according to Wikipedia, he has 8,515 of them that he supervises. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To caveat, he presumably oversaw a similar number of priests in 1957.  Not sure about vocational trends in Greek Orthodoxy.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, you're right!  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as references have been added to the article and archbishops of a major denomination are usually included, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per improvements and per arguments above. BD2412 T 00:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Diocesans bishops and archbishops of major denominations are always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:57, 1 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