hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Martin Lawrence Galleries: Everything I found on them is advertisement.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Companies .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete having separately come to essentially the same conclusion as nom.  There's some mere-mentions on Google Scholar but nowhere near WP:ORGCRITE .  Otherwise, just promotional database entries online.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm swayed by the quality of the LA Times coverage and based on its timestamps I suspect that additional coverage exists offline.  The French Quarterly coverage also helps.  Keep signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , added two Los Angeles Times articles without too much searching.  The "problem" here is that these are prolific and well-known galleries, and their personal items overwhelm search engines.  They have compiled a great deal of self-published articles on art and artists, adding their scholarship and commentary to the field.  This is a notable chain of galleries, and while they should have more articles pertaining to their work, the two L.A. Times pages should do for meeting WP:GNG .  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Martin Lawrence Galleries should be kept on Wikipedia due to its significant role in the art world, showcasing works by renowned artists across multiple U.S. locations for over 40 years, highlighting its cultural and educational importance.  Its presence in industry publications and news further supports its notability and relevance, making it a valuable resource for readers interested in art and gallery operations.  NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 19:02, 5 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
Guarani Wikipedia: Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing?  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Latin America , South America ,  and Paraguay .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per sources added.  This one has one independent reference but unless we find a better one I think, still Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have just added more references, including two Paraguayan newspapers.  Best, -- Fadesga ( talk ) 10:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  The article does seem to contain some useful information, so I feel less strongly than I do about the other Wikipedias.  For the moment I won't vote.  Athel cb ( talk ) 12:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions .  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 07:18, 29 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
Csaba Gál: Lacks references.  Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Romania .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize, I have added the rationale now.  Shinadamina ( talk ) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two GNG passing sources in foreign language Wikipedia.  I imagine there will be sourcing offline also, given he won well over 80 caps for his nation and appeared in 3 World Cups.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE .  I added some references from the corresponding article in Romanian.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:03, 20 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
Inertia damper: Mostly unreferenced OR, half of which is an unsourced list of "Real-world applications and devices".  The only two footnotes are for the red-linked concept of a rotary damper (perhaps it is notable and should be split and stubbed?).  I'll note that the concept of "Inertia damper" does have a few hundred hits on GScholar, so there may be a real science concept to be written about here, but what we have begs for WP:TNT , IMHO.  Pinging participants of the aforementioned AfD: User:Lubal , User:Xxanthippe , User:Zxcvbnm , User:Shooterwalker , User:Johnjbarton , User:Rorshacma and User:DrowssapSMM .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Science .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : and TNT per nom.  Drowssap SMM 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't see a problem here.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep as nominator has not provided solid grounds for deletion.  No evidence of a proper BEFORE was made, as nominator has not attempted to source check any of these "hundreds of scholar hits," and they also demand a TNT, which is cleanup and not something that needs to be brought to AfD.  If this article needs a rewrite, it should be discussed on the article talk page.  If the concept can be proven non-notable, then that is a different story.  But the rationale above does not have me convinced that this article needs to be removed.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I deleted a bunch of stuff that @ Piotrus mentioned and added some refs to real stuff.  The refs tend to use "inertial damper" or sometimes "inerter".  I think a better resolution would be to convert this into Damper (engineering) and summarize the articles in damper .  Johnjbarton ( talk ) 02:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Johnjbarton Thanks for trying to rescue it, it looks better.  Note that inerter is a disambig that does not link here currently.  Not sure to what degree this article here overlaps with Inerter (mechanical networks) ?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the repaired page seems reasonable as others have said.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:24, 19 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
Time of Death: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  McNamara, Mary (2013-11-01).  "Review: 'Time of Death' is a moving but too tidy look at dying persons" .  Los Angeles Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-08-20 .  Retrieved 2023-08-20 .  The review notes: "“Time of Death” is powerful stuff and difficult to watch. It’s also impossible not to admire the courage and generosity of all those who agreed to be filmed during such a time. The unifying effect of the stricken may offer the strongest proof of our essential humanity — watching a man apologize for his sins with his final breaths, we eagerly forgive just as we would be forgiven. Still, “Time of Death” is so determined to celebrate the power of a “good” death that it often tidies away the very things that makes bedside vigils so inspiring. The grimmer realities of the dying body are not dealt with — there isn’t an adult diaper in sight — and with the exception of Maria, no voice is raised except in song."  Stuever, Hank (2013-10-31).  "Showtime's 'Time of Death': An Important and Honest Look at What Death Is Really Like" .  The Washington Post .  Archived from the original on 2023-08-20 .  Retrieved 2023-08-20 .  The review notes: "I watched all the episodes consecutively and came away exhausted, but I also came away with a sense of comfort that I still can’t quite describe. It was gratitude, in part, to the subjects and their families for letting the cameras in. “Time of Death” is vital and meaningful television; if you watch, I hope it gives you the same peace and understanding it gave me."  Ostrow, Joanne (2013-10-24).  " "Time of Death" a Difficult Six-Part Documentary Series on Showtime" .  The Denver Post .  Archived from the original on 2023-08-20 .  Retrieved 2023-08-20 .  The review notes: "The tone is unobtrusive, although occasionally the voice of an interviewer is present, coaxing the subjects. Executive producers used small crews embedded with the subjects to track these stories, from doctors’ offices and hospitals to homes, all the way to deathbeds. The camera is discreet, cutting away at the very end, giving privacy when taste requires. The families involved are brave in ways not required of ordinary “reality TV” subjects. Even when they appear to be speaking for the camera, the situations are not manipulated. The impact is quite powerful."  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Time of Death to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard ( talk ) 00:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources Cunard found meet GNG.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:22, 21 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
Nupela: Looking for suggestions.  iVickyChoudhary ( talk ) 12:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just noting that the page was previously deleted in 2009 as part of a mass deletion of articles created by Anybot .  The relevant AfD can be found here .  Also noting that this version and the previously deleted one are very different.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very well discussed in Gscholar, this is typical [18] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Diatom : Clearly fails GNG.  Don't think we need an indiscriminate collection of every single tiny organism.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 18:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Species and taxa are inherently notable per WP:SPECIES .  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!  ⚓ 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - accepted taxa are notable if validly published.  -- awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is easier to just improve a taxon article that already exists than to delete it and make someone else re-create it.  At least this one has a validly published reference, instead of a database url.  Also, redirecting it to a higher taxon when they are not synonyms or monotypic makes our editing even more difficult, so I kindly ask you not to do it, please.  — Snoteleks ( Talk ) 10:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly passes GNG, with 100's of sources in Google Scholar.  Esculenta ( talk ) 17:33, 30 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
Helen Keller Services for the Blind: I can't find any sources on Google; granted, it might be possible that if you live closer to the organization, sources would be easier to find.  A couple of sources have been added, but they are, at best, of questionable independence.  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations ,  and New York .  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be inclined to keep .  I appreciate that sourcing is a bit wobbly, but Google searching finds quite a lot of situations that indicate that reliable sources regard this institution as meaningful.  For example, the New York Times chose to interview Rosemary Romano at great length about her role leading the organisation.  [14] We may not regard interviews as reliable in the sense that interviewees are biased, but an interview by NYT still demonstrates notability.  Similarly, the White House reckons that Paul Boskind's work for this organisation makes him worthy of being one of president Biden's advisors on disability.  [15] Yes, everything I'm finding is an interview or a passing mention, but there's a lot of stuff out there suggesting that the word in general regards Helen Keller Services as a major organisation.  The Japanese prime minister's spouse also thought it worth a visit!  [16] Elemimele ( talk ) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There seem to be more than enough mentions of the institution [17] where they've contributed or done clinical research trials.  It seems notable, but I do admit the sourcing is minimal.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree that this article needs improvement for sources, but it does look notable.  I poked around on jstor, and it looks like the organization is has enough credibility with other organizations to be the center of a deaf employment campaign for over a decade.  [1] [2] Mason ( talk ) 14:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Back Matter.  (1999).  American Annals of the Deaf , 144 (3).  [1] ^ Front Matter.  (1988).  American Annals of the Deaf , 133 (2).  [2] Keep per Elemimele, Oaktree b, and Mason.  Appears to pass WP:BASIC .  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 19:55, 12 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
Mount Pleasant, Kansas: Whereas Mount Pleasant Township is a real census area, there appears to have never been any town called Mount Pleasant; only a lone post office.  Passenger pigeon ( talk ) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions .  Passenger pigeon ( talk ) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Worst case something about it can be included in the article that OP mentions but as a standalone with little evidence that it actually existed, no.  Darron4 ( talk ) 10:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  History of Kansas at https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof00andr/page/402/mode/2up (page 403, reference already in article) describes Mount Pleasant as "the town site of Mount Pleasant, Mount Pleasant Township", which I think means the urbanized area of the township as distinct from the surrounding rural area.  This is followed by brief biographies of residents, suggesting that considerable work went into that chapter, not just scanning maps looking for place names.  I looked for the coordinates included in the article, 39°26'52.0"N 95°08'16.0"W.  Google Maps shows several buildings (which apparently are all part of one farm) at the intersection of Rawlins Road and 222nd Road, but no Street View images or names of occupants.  There is more urbanization near https://goo.gl/maps/2eB8GVUg47KHwed36 , which is a bit to the south and which Google Maps shows as 18343 KS-74, Atchison, KS 66002.  I don't think we can ignore the historical evidence of History of Kansas , but I don't know whether 18343 KS-74, Atchison, KS 66002 is Mount Pleasant or not.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Lippincott-Gazzeteer of 1880 said it had a population of around 1300 along with two churches, so WP:GEOLAND is satisfied.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  and thanks to Eastmain for coming up with the definitive source via Internet Archive.   I've added that source to the history section, so this should never have to come up again.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:08, 16 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
Retro-style automobile: Do we need a list full of unsourced claims?  WP:LISTN , WP:EXAMPLEFARM SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, you may have noticed that I have made significant contributions to this article.  I could either add sources to the claims or shorten down the featured list (or do both), or just leave the article for admins to discuss / delete if this article is not needed.  Thanks.  Mustang208 ( talk ) 20:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with the article with the headings but can you add sources in.  Also, I do not think the lists are necessary.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I came across this today while trying to research the Plymouth prowler and it was exactly what I needed, it should definitely stay.  It’s an aesthetic phenomenon in car production that was very popular for awhile and still exists today albeit rare.  There’s no reason this page shouldn’t exist, and I was sad when I saw the banner saying deleting it was being considered.  72.181.15.133 ( talk ) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  If it's nicely referenced there's no harm in it staying now is there?  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep .  Everything in the list should be sourced (as should everything in Wikipedia).  The concept is notable even without the list, and the list itself provides a useful set of examples, if sourced.  BD2412 T 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references and per additional information beyond the category.  gidonb ( talk ) 13:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn , very satisfied with the article as it is given that it passes notability guidelines.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:23, 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
Osama bin Laden's house in Khartoum: While the compound where Bin Laden was killed, 'might' warrant its own article but this one?   And while the sources mention the house, they aren’t talking about the 'house'.   They don’t discuss it other than in passing, basically that he lived there.  The sources write about what he did while he was living there.  The house might merit a brass plate or graffiti tag saying “UBL slept here”, but at this time not a Wikipedia article.  Note: after looking, the Abbottabad house also doesn’t warrant an article.  Both articles are mini biographies, discussing stuff that happened during his lifetime there, but not about the house.  Artificial Nagger ( talk ) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The precise layout was the subject of intensive research before his death on his last house, & some discussion afterwards.  Obviously meets GNG, & there's enough to justify its own article.  We have 5 in Category:Al-Qaeda safe houses btw.  Gets decent views, especially now of course.  Johnbod ( talk ) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Baffled why this would be nominated.  As John says, obviously meets GNG and should be swiftly closed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:02, 4 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