hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Warm (The Lettermen album): Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Album by a famous band and important influence (listen to the Beach Boys).  Such articles are commonly kept, or if not, should be.  Explain how deleting the article would improve the experience of readers searching on this term.  Herostratus ( talk ) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - Per WP:V , "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 14:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point, but that applies to material we adding to the article .  When discussing the content or fate of articles among ourselves, we have a lot more leeway to offer opinions and claims without having to necessarily provide sources.  For instance, we should absolutely not put in their article that they influenced the Beach Boys (until we have a good source saying that), but it's very likely true IMO, and that matters when deciding how important they are.  Herostratus ( talk ) 00:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep major and historical band, hope that no other Letterman albums have been blanked or deleted on the basis similar to this nom.  We don't expect albums of this vintage to have the same amount of current sources as 2023 releasses.  In ictu oculi ( talk ) 09:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I think their compilation album was redirected.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jax 0677 I assume you're using this as an argument to delete this album.  Not a strong argument.  If in doubt, consider restoring it and bring it to AfD and see what happens.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep adequate coverage in music trade magazines.  A bit more work and referencing required and it should easily meet the requirements.  Karl Twist ( talk ) 08:10, 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
Cemal Akçin: ManILoveEatingChess57 ( talk ) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL as he was elected four times to the Turkish Parliament.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NPOL .  His status as MP can be verified with machine translation.  Needs the attention of a native speaker.  Jfire ( talk ) 03:12, 11 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
Arabesque (rapper): Shellwood ( talk ) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: While the article certainly needs improvement and more sources, news outlets reporting that they were Juno nominated does hold some notability.  It seems like an article that could be salvaged with additional sources.  LemonberryPie ( talk ) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Believe does meet requirements of notability stated in WP:MUSICBIO .  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article does need some improvement, but he has a Juno Award nomination under his belt — please see WP:NMUSIC #8, in which the Junos are explicitly listed as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes that criterion — and there are already sources in the article from the likes of the Toronto Star and Now and Exclaim!  , which are solid and GNG-worthy sources.  Yes, improvement would be helpful, but what's already here isn't inadequate at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bearcat has provided evidence of notability.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets notability with nomination for a major music award and coverage in reliable sources.   -- Whpq ( talk ) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:SINGER per Juno nom.  Resonant Dis tor tion 21:43, 3 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
Detachments (British band): Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:10, 10 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!  08:57, 17 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!  09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I made a major overhaul of the article and added several references.  There are plenty of reliable sources about the band out there, and more work can be done, but I have made a start.  Deleting the article seems extreme.  If people really don't think the band itself is notable, then what about renaming the article to "Bastian Marshal" (the vocalist and seemingly "leader" of the band)?  And then making it about his work in general with this band and his other work as well, as it seems he has had a lot of involvement with music apart from just this specific band.  Vontheri ( talk ) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, if it wasn't obvious, my vote is for keep .  Vontheri ( talk ) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just about sufficient independent coverage and reviews have been added to the article from sources such as BBC , The Guardian and Resident Advisor to get over the line and meet WP:NBAND .  Resonant Dis tor tion 23:22, 26 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
TwoTiime: No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage.  Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication ( Ottawa Citizen ).  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music.   No charted songs or notable awards.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I created the article but I'll comment anyways.  Meets WP:BASIC .  There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ( [20] [21] ) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject.  There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ( [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] ) which are independent of the subject.  There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ( [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S .  This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary.  Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC.  I don't see how this is controversial.  C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion , though.  It can be fixed through editing.  I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply.  C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A little promo in an article is not a criteria for deletion except of blatant ones.  I am sure of the articles presented per se from Complex .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  22:06, 29 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
Russell Henderson (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Leaning oppose for now (I removed the PROD), but this may be a technicality that can be resolved.  The problem is, that WP:ONEOTHER says: " If there is a primary topic located at the base name,... " and bases everything that follows on that condition.  However, that condition is not satisfied, since the primary topic is currently not located at the base name, and so I presume that ONEOTHER does not apply here for the time being.  The primary topic is clearly the convict (who has the PARENDIS, at

Discussion outcome: keep
Hebraization of Portuguese: Fram ( talk ) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal .  Fram ( talk ) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning Keep - but I'm wondering whether this is better merged with Judaeo-Portuguese which is an extinct Jewish language.  There appear to be academic sources discussing Judaeo-Portuguese and I'm not now sure if they also support this page or not.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the Judaeo-Portuguese alphabet.  Mario The PS2 Guy ( talk ) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a useful article on an obscure topic and one for which references undoubtedly exist.  it is worth keeping and improving.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:19, 24 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
Nigerian Chrislam: Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If 'embarrassing the subject' was legitimate grounds for deleting articles, we'd have a great many fewer.  Since it isn't, we'll have to go by normal Wikipedia practice, and look at notability instead.  The article seems adequately cited, and Google Scholar turns up a considerable number of sources, so deletion seems inappropriate, and this AfD seems misconceived.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Invalid deletion rationale.  Finding good sourcing on this subject.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per AndyTheGrump.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep even if it doesn't occur anymore it is a notable historic phenomenon.  Add to the article that it does not happen anymore instead Immanuel le ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing should be added to the article without a source.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 01:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the edit history of this article shows that IPV6 editor @ 2A00:23C8:941E:CD01:B8E2:BD4D:1349:ACD3 repeatedly blanked information on this page including adding a "does not occur anymore" comment (possible 3RR violation).   Several minutes after the last revert, account @ Taku234 was created.  Neither has edited anywhere else in Wikipedia.  Agree with other editors there appears to be no valid deletion rationale.  If this moves anywhere close to delete, I'll review further and vote.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Pbritti as this an invalid nomination Kaizenify ( talk ) 01:38, 22 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
Batons (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.  Batons (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of wands .  Batons (suit) / Suit of batons is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of wands is (it says) about Tarot cards.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge .  These are two distinct topics.  Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes.  So Batons (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of wands is purely about cartomantic cards.  They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover.  The same is true of cups and goblets, coins and pentacles, etc.  We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do.  I agree the names need sorting out and perhaps they could be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit).  HTH.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:58, 14 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
Conjugal love: GnocchiFan ( talk ) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's undersourced, but it's been around 12+ years and clearly more than a dictdef.  But this makes me wonder if there's another article on the same topic somewhere that this should be combined into.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : The closest I can think of is Romantic love .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, but that's a very distinct concept.  Conjugal == of or relating to marriage; romantic love is pretty orthogonal.  We don't have spousal love either.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, that makes sense.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep imo, although it clearly badly needs improvement.  Google scholar is giving me a plethora of articles discussing this as a philosophical topic.  — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Not unsourced.   Yes it is brief, but it is more than a dictionary definition.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:28, 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
Liuyang fireworks: Cold Season ( talk ) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Liuyang fireworks are a significant cultural tradition from China, with a history dating back to the Tang dynasty.  It has been selected as one of the intangible cultural heritages of the People's Republic of China .  When searching for [浏阳花炮] in the Chinese language, there are numerous significant sources in books and media coverage.  Here are some examples: [25] and [26] .  Please conduct research before considering it for AfD.  1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The results of the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination statement show significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and that's just in English.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 11:54, 3 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
Ihor Lachenkov: Кронас ( talk ) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Кронас ( talk ) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is he “non-notable”?  Слава Україні 10:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 10 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!  08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   This is a close one.   The best sources I could find are probably [25] and [26] which are pretty basic.   Most other sources are interviews or passing mentions.   On the other hand, even a passing mention in The New York Times is pretty impressive for a Ukrainian blogger.   He is also the most popular news blogger for young Ukrainians according to a UN sponsored study .   Having an article on him improves Wikipedia.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Next time, please include a more substantial deletion rationale.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments and question : the Uk article looks substantial.  Can the text and cites be translated and added?  Bearian ( talk ) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : lots of sourcing is written in ukrainian, but per Eluchil404 there is sufficient sourcing that relatively meets notability.  She was a fairy 09:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
List of restaurants in Rotterdam: Also doesn’t follow GNG.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Netherlands .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Could this content be something that could be transwikified to the Wikivoyage sister project?  It's also important to state that the list doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN .   – The Grid ( talk ) 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all but one with articles were from the same user and are also at List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands .  Reywas92 Talk 19:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 8 valid links to other articles, making this a valid link, just like all the others at Category:Lists of restaurants by city and many other Category:Lists of restaurants .   I removed all red links and the lists of chains.   This is a perfectly valid information and navigational list.   This same debate has happened multiple times before.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Wales , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in New Jersey , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Cincinnati , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Baltimore , always ending in keep.  D r e a m Focus 11:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think Dream Focus summed it up very well.  Rotterdam is the second largest city in the Netherlands and has a lot of notable restaurants, so this article can even be expanded including different qualitative sources.  Coldbolt ( talk ) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  NOTGUIDE is more on excessive details or subjective listing regardless of notability (i.e. listing every restaurant).  This is merely a list of restaurants deemed notable by their existing articles and that are in Rotterdam.  It is not an indicator of guidance suggesting the best restaurants nor an elongated list of every single restaurant in Rotterdam, including non-notable ones, it is limited to deemed notable restaurants.  All other similar list articles should ideally be considered together if using this reasoning, in light of similar past AfDs.  Dank Jae 00:14, 16 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