hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
DD Osama: With one mixtape under their belt, no chance of meeting WP:MUSICBIO either.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and New York .  DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Signally fails WP:GNG.  Nothing more, as Gorillaz tell us, to say.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Album review in Pitchfork [48] , piece in Hip Hop Canada [49] , the Hype [50] .  I think he's ok for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist meets notability standards if he "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself".  Here are some examples of independent coverage on DD Osama by publications that are considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE : Pitchfork , XXL , HipHopDx , Rolling Stone .  Célestin Denis ( talk ) 19:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with the points mentioned above that show the subject has had multiple reliable sources cover his music.  The subject is also still only 16 years old and is already signed to a major record label.  He meets Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and unless he stops making music, he will likely pass Criteria 3 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO too.  Hiphopsavedmylife ( talk ) 06:28, 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
Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater): PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Taiwan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources .  DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession.  My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed.  Add to that your bad faith aspersions.  A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete insuffient coverage. -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:21, 16 May 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!  03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob delete - I'm not seeing RS.  It is possible they exist in languages I don't read but if that's the case I encourage ! keep voters to bring sources to the discussion.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per  DCsansei and JTtheOG.  58.152.55.172 ( talk ) 10:43, 19 May 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!  03:38, 24 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
Floripes Dornellas de Jesus: Nerdy314 ( talk ) 02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Christianity .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Servants of God, the first step on the road to canonisation, are definitely notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nothing the matter with Catholic sources when we're talking about a Catholic woman on the path to sainthood.  Appears notable: pilgrimage site, celebration of her day, etc.  Pam D 13:38, 14 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
Fondazione Child: Emir of Wikipedia ( talk ) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy .  Emir of Wikipedia ( talk ) 21:57, 6 May 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!  22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invalid justifications.  Jack4576 please stop making such votes, if you object to an AFD please provide sources here by yourself instead of doubting if others conducted online searches.  Thank you.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:17, 14 May 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!  23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I do have concerns about some of the writing about the organization, but the WHO acknowledged the organization's sponsorship of a major conference ("We are deeply grateful to Foundation CHILD (Fondazione per lo Studio e la Ricerca sull’Infanza e l’Adolescenza), from Italy, that provided partial financial support to the technical meeting on “Caring for Children and Adolescents With Mental Disorders: Setting WHO Directions”....").  Fixing minor mistakes and editing down verbiage is not the purpose of AfD.  They have done enough, on a global basis, to be notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While not familiar with Italian sources, this is trivial coverage [1] , about typical of them, only being briefly mentioned in sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:07, 23 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
Joji Nagashima: Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Japan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There does seem to be adequate coverage in English in Google Books, and there also look to be multiple sources in the ja article.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is coverage in Japanese, which counts towards notability per WP:GLOBAL & WP:NONENG .  Would be nice if WP:BEFORE had been followed here.  DCsansei ( talk ) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added three citations, including coverage in Japanese press fround through ProQuest International.  MrSpartan456 ( talk ) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to be a notable indiviual and passes WP:GNG .  Powerviki ( talk ) 15:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per coverage founded above in Japanese.  Antimargi ( talk ) 16:40, 2 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
Arthur Buchardt: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years ; I hope we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ANYBIO https://snl.no/Arthur_Buchardt Geschichte ( talk ) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Store Norsk Lexicon link shared in the comment above this shows notability; it's also used in the Swedish article for this person.  Could probably add a few more sources, but it seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:18, 17 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
Alan Bell (sprinter): Otherwise unable to find SIGCOV, calling a GNG fail Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I added several new cites to the article .  Newspapers covered him on a first-name basis, see for example "Alan rings up double to start the season" .  Liverpool Daily Post (Merseyside ed.) .  1978-03-20.  p. 13 .  Retrieved 2024-01-11 .  They demonstrate WP:SIGCOV -- I found them by just scrolling through the over 2,000 matches for "Alan Bell" from 1977-1985 in the UK, there are still many yet to be found.  Clearly satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT , and he is quite fast too as his 45.65 400m in the 1980 UK Champs semifinals was the #3 UK mark of all time.  -- Habst ( talk ) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , per Habst's expansion and work.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:56, 15 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
Jürgen L. Born: - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Definitely unnotable, no widespread coverage at all besides his own personal pages.  May be self-promotional.  GuardianH ( talk ) 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep there is a large amount of coverage (lots of negative coverage, some standard media interviews) but might fall under WP:BLP1E as outside of interviews it's all about one scandal afaict.  eg.  [20] [21] .  However, the subject had an interview as recently as [22] 2020.  As such they would not meet BLP1E, hence my lean towards keep.  — siro χ o 22:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The de:Jürgen Born article has some sources as well, and is much more in-depth. .  — siro χ o 23:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As suggested by Indefensible , I've taken a look at the sources in the German article.  Note that in what follows, I'm also including sources I found during my research that are not in the German article.  This article in Welt is definitely in-depth coverage, and it's quite a reputable publication.  I would also say that this is coverage of Born more so than the scandal itself.  This article on the Werder Bremen scandal covers Born quite in-depth as well.  This is pretty good biographical coverage of Born, another GNG source.  This is some further reporting on the scandal and Born.  This is an article in the Spiegel from when Born assumed his position at Werder Bremen (1999), and this article is more coverage of him long after the scandal.  All together, there's more than enough here to fulfill the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC , and a pretty good article could be written from this information.  For future reference: This is a timeline of the corruption scandal, which might be useful if the article is not deleted.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ GuardianH as a lot of good sources have been found.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:23, 22 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
Nititad Promotion: UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:JNN argument without substantiation.  Historically one of the largest record labels in Thailand, as attested by the Billboard piece cited in the article.  More in-depth coverage very likely exists in pre-Internet Thai news sources, in addition to the Siamdara magazine article cited in Thwiki [4] , mention in this Thammasat Journal of History article [5] , and this Krtungthep Turakij article about its current business [6] .  This 1994 TV Digest magazine article about the rift among its key people, reproduced in this forum post [7] , is an example of the level of coverage it had in the day.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 13:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Paul_012. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article was subjected to an unwarranted level of abuse in the process of its creation; it was draftified, nommed for speedy, prodded, and now AfD'ed.  Sometimes people are trying to tell you something when they create an article, folks.  Chubbles ( talk ) 14:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Paul 012, and it is not clear that the sources in the article fail GNG.  Third largest label in a large sovereign nation?  That seems a very high indication of notability to me. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:56, 21 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
Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias: and with no significant coverage Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An attempt at WP:BEFORE was clearly not conducted.  Simply Googling his name returns an absolute slew of sources providing WP:SIGCOV indicating he easily passes WP:GNG .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further, I am going to reiterate what Jack1956 said at this other AfD that this account only appears to exist to nominate articles for deletion (and to add on) without conducting proper searches before nominating (per the series of rapid-fire bad nominations).  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Before fail.  Srnec ( talk ) 02:07, 28 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
Anna McNulty: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG by having coverage in multiple RS over a span of at least 4 years ( CBC 2019 being the oldest that's actually about her content creation).  Also the claim of "just a YouTuber" doesn't particularly make sense as being a YouTuber is the primary thing she is notable for, see especially being YouTube's top Canadian creator of 2023 ).  I would say it's more accurate to say she's a contortionist with significant performance as a YouTuber.  Samsmachado ( talk ) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't count youtube views as notable.  That article just mentions her name in a list of people and isn't strictly about her.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete.  : Being on youtube is fine, but we need SIGCOV.  The one CBC article is about her, the rest are interviews or brief mentions.  The National Post isn't substantial coverage.  This is typical [18] .  One more big non-CBC source and I think we'd have enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Even in French-Canadian media, only a brief mention [19] .  TOOSOON I think Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we should necessarily expect French-Canadian media to cover her.  She's from an anglophone area, and now lives in Los Angeles.  Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 00:43, 29 February 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!  07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A google search brings up Global News CTV News CBC Girls' Life and CP24 Jannaultheal ( talk ) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I reviewed this as part of NPP, and I'm confused we find ourselves at AFD.  From the start, the article met WP:GNG according to the sources in the article.  How are [20] and [21] not sigcov?  Since then, she's been interviewed all over, as Jannaultheal points out, so it's even less tenable.  Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 00:55, 29 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
Big Mama stela: This seems like a very marginal topic that doesn't need its own page.  Angryapathy ( talk ) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After the good work that Joe Roe did with the page, I believe that we can rename this article Arco I and close the discussion.  Angryapathy ( talk ) 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Italy .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing for this stone item, lots for Big Mamas of all sorts found...  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] HOAX?  Why would an Italian stele have such an odd English name.  Who knows.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Arco I .  This really is (was) a terrible article: as far as I can tell the "Big Mama" nickname is completely made up, the connection to Ötzi is highly speculative to say the least, and even the title is spelled wrong (it's about a stel e , not a stel a ).  But underneath it there is actually a notable topic, which is named in one of the external links as Arco I .  Google Scholar and Google Books searches turn up plenty of sources that could be used to expand it.  For now I've stubbed it to verifiable info.  If kept it should be moved, if not to Arco I then to something like Arco stelae where we could cover the whole group of six.  – Joe ( talk ) 09:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename per above.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a not-yet-created Arco stelae page.  I think Arco I alone might not meet the notability criteria.  -- Broc ( talk ) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looking for more clarity on whether Arco I is notable in itself or whether the resulting article should be Arco stelae .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Arco I itself is notable, I think the references linked above and now cited in the article amply show that.  The question is more one of WP:PAGEDECIDE : covering them together in Arco stelae would avoid repeating a lot of contextual information, but we currently only have material on Arco I, so unless someone is volunteering to write about the others I don't see that as a viable outcome right now.  In any case, I don't see why that needs to be decided at AfD.  – Joe ( talk ) 10:32, 30 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