hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Chris Godbey : No links found other than social media, no mentions in RS in Gnews.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't know they gave out multiple Grammy awards (or even nominations) to people with no notability.  Interesting.  Trainsskyscrapers ( talk ) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The album won, he didn't.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's an actual 2-time Grammy winner (with a verified page on the Grammys website).  https://www.grammy.com/artists/chris-godbey/2391 Sorry.  I don't make the rules.  (Engineers/Mixers are also recognized in most Grammy Album categories)  Grammy Win #1 - https://www.grammy.com/awards/49th-annual-grammy-awards (Go to Best Contemporary R&B Gospel Album) Grammy Win #2 - https://www.grammy.com/awards/51st-annual-grammy-awards (Go to Best Contemporary R&B Gospel Album) Trainsskyscrapers ( talk ) 02:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is needlessly sarcastic.  Notability isn't an intrinsic attribute of an article's subject, it's about their coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources.  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The Recording Academy seems to consider him a Grammy nominee and winner, even if it's for a project he worked on rather than an individual award.  That passes WP:NMUSIC .  Kalethan ( talk ) 15:19, 11 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!  23:22, 12 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!  23:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Grammy awards for recordings are given to individuals (performers and production team, generally).  For "performance" it often does not apply to the production team, and only to performers, but that's not the case here, so WP:NMUSICBIO#C8 applies.   — siro χ o 02:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Pytchair : 100% pure corporate puff-piece.  Only substantial contributor has a clear conflict of interest.  10mmsocket ( talk ) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  10mmsocket ( talk ) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on basis that entire article written by undisclosed COI.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (barely): Needs cleanup, rhis is a three paragraph article at most, but it meets GNG.  [1] , [2] , [3] .  // Timothy :: talk 21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG as an aircraft due to ITV and BBC coverage at least WP:PROMO issues can be dealt with through normal editing.  FOARP ( talk ) 17:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes GNG without a doubt.  Article needs a bit of cleanup for improvement, but is clearly worth keeping in my opinion.  CycloneYoris talk!  00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I cleaned up the article.  Still more to be done.  I think the registration and ownership info in the infobox should be removed, it is unsourced, but I imagine someone could find this info in a database, so I marked it cn.  // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 24 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
Koriki Choshu : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 13:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a preliminary comment, he is definitely a nationally-known television personality, so I am quite confident he will pass all of the relevant notability tests once someone has a chance to look for sources.  Dekimasu よ!  13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some basic sources: this from Sports Nippon , this from Oricon , this from Asahi Shimbun , this from Sankei Shimbun .  Also quite a few discussions of him in Google Books.  Keep and improve.  Dekimasu よ!  14:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added a few sources, and an Expand/Ja template but the sources on the Jp Wp are mostly interviews.  I don't have time to look any further now.  At least a redirect to List_of_Japanese_comedians#C , where he is listed seems warranted.  And hopefully, users who have time and interest can revert the redirect and add sources.  But, considering he is a Jp celebrity, keep , hoping that other existing sources like this , this (etc., it's never great but it seems independent enough and does show he is a well-known TV personality; you need to search in Jp, though) are deemed sufficient by other users.  Opposed to deletion.  Article needs trimming (I did remove a few things but more can be cut if the page is retained). .Best, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources found above.  Clearly passes notability threshold.  DCsansei ( talk ) 14:59, 7 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
Edward Carter (priest) : JMWt ( talk ) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  He's from the 17th century and the article has three sources on him, that's already a pretty good suggestion of notability; here's two more on a quick search.  — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These all look like mentions.  None of them appear to be at the level of significant coverage needed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt ( talk ) 08:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand , do not delete, per Moriwen.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 11:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Christianity Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:00, 21 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
Go Topless Day : The first sentence of the article directly states that it "is an annual event held in the United States to support the right of women to go topless in public on gender-equality grounds."  All of the info on this page has been directly lifted from Female toplessness in the United States#Political_movements which is the more appropriate place for this information to be presented.  As this page is an exact copy it does not warrant an entire page to itself.  I suggest deletion.  Agent123456789 ( talk ) 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , An annual event held in the United States will be sourced with American references.  Nothing strange about that.  Christian75 ( talk ) 07:05, 15 July 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 July 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears to have been deleted already.  Red-linked.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sexuality and gender , Canada ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I see plenty of coverage from a variety of news sources, spanning a decade, so I'm not seeing a notability problem.  Moreover, I would like to note that Canada is not, in fact, part of the United States, and the CBC, Toronto Star , Toronto Sun , and National Post are Canadian news outlets, not American ones.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per asilvering; content which touches on Canadian aspects does not belong in an article about the United States.  The assertion by the nominator that this article is an exact copy is therefore either incorrect or can be fixed by normal editing processes.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- the sources already in the article are much, much more than are necessary to meet the GNG.  Perhaps Nom is correct that the info would be better placed in another article, but this can be handled by merge or redirect and is therefore a matter for ordinary editing.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:51, 21 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
Illyricvm : Two of the sources  quote the same press release (including the same images).  No evidence of significant coverage in RSs.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 11:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Croatia ,  and Slovenia .  Velella Velella Talk 11:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is a difference between referencing a press release and reprinting a press release.  I think that the references used in the article are sufficiently independent to count as reliable sources.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added some acccolades won by the film to the article.  I do hope this will convince people that film is indeed notable enough to have its own article.  Franjo Tahy ( talk ) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are multiple sources and the film won many awards.  There might even be more in other languages such as Italian, since the film was produced by several European countries.  -- Brunnaiz ( talk ) 22:51, 28 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
MacGregor (filmmaker) : sig Keep : Unsourced?  Yes.  Rewrite?  Needed.  But I don't think the subject person is non-notable.  He was listed as the cinematographer for several big productions in the article, including Vivarium , Fall , Kandahar , and A Thousand Suns , as well as a documentary film The Mauritania Railway: Backbone of the Sahara credited with his real name Miguel de Olaso.  For each one I found sources to back it.  ( The Jewish Chronicle and Screen Daily for Vivarium [9] [10] , Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall [11] [12] , The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar [13] & [14] , Inverse for A Thousand Suns [15] , and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [16] )  So this already fulfills the third criterion of WP:FILMMAKER , where a person has to play a major role in co-creating a well-known work with multiple reliable sources to cover or review it.  I also found an interview of the subject person with Red Shark News [17] , which covered his early life in detail, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this source and whether it can be considered as demonstrating notability.  Nonetheless, I think fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER would already be sufficient for me to vote Keep.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 12:03, 31 May 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 May 31 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Prince of Erebor.  I can see why it would attract a deletion nomination though.  He was interviewed by Red Shark News and there are a couple other good articles to use.  He's picked up some good awards.  I can't understand why though with this much work, there are no refs.  I had a quick look in the history and there were some a while back.  But they're gone.  Rather than draft or redirect, a bold tag to improve this article is a must.  Karl Twist ( talk ) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per rationale above.  Be ica verra verra ]] talk 03:01, 6 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
Sestre (drag act) : Only notable for one event, their Eurovision participation.  92.249.247.173 ( talk ) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) }} [ reply ] Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from the IP's user talk page.  As for my own view, one would think that participation in Eurovision would render an act inherently notable, but at the very least the sourcing could use improvement. -- Finngall talk 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Sexuality and gender ,  and Slovenia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN .  BabbaQ ( talk ) 07:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ONEEVENT is a valid rationale.  I suggest a redirect to the Slovenia in ESC 2002 page.  - 92.249.247.156 ( talk ) 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a suggestion, create a user account.  As your IP adress is obviously changing.  Anyways, - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN applies here and is pointing to notability.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the amount of coverage they received back then clearly establishes notability.  Adding criteria 11 from MN, their main song still appears on radio and TV shows sometimes.  -- Tone 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 ; the article is largely unsourced, therefore is already falling down on WP:BLP , and given WP:1E their only notable achievement being representing Slovenia at Eurovision I believe a redirect to another article where their appearance within this one event is discussed in greater detail is more appropriate.  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 13:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or selectively merge as suggested.  A redirect without keeping some of the information would be in error.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:14, 25 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!  21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: - the criterias 10 and 12 of WP:MN still applies for notability.  So staying behind my Keep rationale.  Also criteria 11 seem to apply indeed as pointed out by user Tone above.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sourcing as it stands should ideally be improved but I agree with the rationale above that points 10-12 from WP:MN apply.  Editing84 ( talk ) 16:55, 26 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
Lucien de Montagnac : I was able to add a dubious citation, but most of the information seems to be from this wikipedia page.  Mason ( talk ) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France .  Mason ( talk ) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Fr wiki article has sourcing, does any of it pass muster?  I don't read the language well enough.  English language sourcing is generally non RS.  Star Mississippi 03:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Fr wiki shows that he has an entry in Biography of military celebrities of the land and sea armies from 1789 to 1850 .  And, even limiting myself to English sources, his Letters from a soldier are cited in modern scholarship, e.g. [53] , [54] , [55] .  Jfire ( talk ) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jfire.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:01, 4 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!  03:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons described by Jfire, translating software can be used to aid in citing french sources.  EmilySarah99 ( talk ) 13:39, 12 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
Crackhead Barney : AfdBarney ( talk ) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Politics , Internet ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Little of the nomination statement is relevant to our notability guidelines.  The subject passes the basic criteria for a person to be notable ( significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ) with profiles in Paper Mag , Inverse , The Independent , etc.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the basic sources identify crackhead barney by name, in fact, she is completely anonymous to the public at large.  At a minimum, these sources need to identify her to be considered reliable.  Most of these sources are primary sources not secondary, or anonymous posts to youtube.   One of the sources you posted The Independent , raises WP:BLP concerns relative to Alec Baldwin and his right to privacy after she followed him into a restaurant onto private property and harassed him while he was purchasing a cup of coffee.  AfdBarney ( talk ) 21:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO .  In addition to what's already in the article, The Root , the Independent , NME (both reporting on the Piers Morgan appearance), Hyperallergic covering a performance , interview magazine , Vice video , the Independent again (via Yahoo -- quick search didn't return the original), etc.  But even if it were borderline, I'm not going to ! vote delete in a nom by a user whose account was created just for that purpose.  PS: whether sources identify her by her real name is 100% irrelevant to notability or reliability (which are explained at WP:N and WP:RS ).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that she has enough notability to be here on Wikipedia.  Once this article acquires more than five cited sources, some of which can include what @ Rhododendrites : brought up, then the article can increase its credibility and relevance.  I would like for this article to mention that Crackhead Barney was on a Savanah Hernandez video , if there is notable coverage for such.  Mungo Kitsch ( talk ) 05:05, 4 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
Beth Mason : Alansohn ( talk ) 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Politics ,  and New Jersey .  Alansohn ( talk ) 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in light of expansion-in-progress and additional sources found through Wikipedia Library, ProQuest, and Newspapers.com, most notably the feature article on Beth Mason as an "open government" crusader bringing 8 lawsuits against the city of Hoboken in The New York Times .  Easily meets WP:GNG and definitely has significance beyond the local city council of Hoboken, as the lawsuits were regarded as a major test of the New Jersey Open Public Records Act .  There is a very long and complicated story here though, which is why it's taking a while to update.  Am planning to circle back with the strongest second and third pieces of coverage after I finish, but in any case, there is/will be plenty to choose from.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Side note: In some of the coverage, she is referred to as Elizabeth Mason, as Elizabeth Abruzese Mason, or Elizabeth A. Mason.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies GNG after Wikipedia:HEY .  Djflem ( talk ) 15:29, 27 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