hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Manfred K. Warmuth: since this article is more than 90 days old it can not be sent to draft unless it goes to AfD.  I believe the article is notable but in its current state it needs work.  Right now it has no references or content that would help it pass WP:ACADEMIC .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Sources have improved this article such that I withdraw this nomination.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Expanded now, easy pass of multiple WP:PROF criteria.  Dr. vulpes is reminded that deletion is not for cleanup , that draftification is not for backdoor deletions, and that if they see a problem they are welcome to fix it themselves rather than trying to bury it in draftspace in the hope that nobody finds it there and it goes away after six months.  Also their phrasing references or content that would help it pass WP:ACADEMIC makes no sense and indicates a failure to understand our notability criteria and to perform WP:BEFORE .  It is article subjects that pass notability criteria, not articles themselves, and the academic criteria are not based on references.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fully aware of the rules @ David Eppstein thank you for the reminder.  If I wanted to delete the article I would have stated as such, the topic clearly had merit but lacked all the things an article should have, such as content and sources.  This attitude that sending articles to Draft is just a backdoor attempt to delete something undermines the purpose of even having drafts.  As a polite reminder AfD is the only mechanism available for moving article off main space into draft after 90 days.  I understand that this guy is in your field but your attitude and tone is not necessary.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:PROF .  Warmuth is a member of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 05:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics , Computing , Germany ,  and California .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 05:20, 18 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: speedy keep
WSWF-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This one's surprising me.  Turns out it went on air in March 1989, not 1997, and its initial format of tourist information resulted in a few articles in the Orlando press.  The station also suffered from a legal dispute and bankruptcy projection.  But in typical LPTV fashion, the station didn't use its then-call sign of W19AX; they were "WTTC".  Added all this material.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 04:08, 16 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: speedy keep
Murder of Fawziyah Javed: Withdrawn.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i still working add for trail for wiki page by -- Sunuraju ( talk ) 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Exceptionally notable case, heavily covered in the media and subject of a two-part documentary on Channel 4, one of the major British TV channels, just a couple of weeks ago.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article needs some cleanup but being featured in a two-part documentary is pretty clear evidence of notability of a crime.  The article should be centred on the case and not written as a bio.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Exceptionally notable topic; is the subject of a documentary.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Media coverage is within WP:GNG.  Sources looks ok as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn, Speedy Keep .  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 10:42, 20 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: speedy keep
Bernard Esterhuizen: All I found were results from a single race ( 1 , 2 ).  A possible redirect target is Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling , Olympics ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some coverage: [22] (includes an Olympian calling him 'The Real Deal of South African cycling') [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : Thank you.  I am happy to speedy close if you ! vote keep.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think the coverage is probably enough.  Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:17, 15 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: speedy keep
Lumber Yard Bar: (I have checked other well known bars and the ones on Wikipedia tend to have famous clientele or events associated with them).  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business , Sexuality and gender ,  and Washington .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is clearly met.  Article is well-referenced to RS.  Jclemens ( talk ) 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep tons of local, regional, and national coverage in the 31 (!) sources provided by the article creator make this unquestionably notable.  LGBTQ Nation , based in San Francisco, covered the impact of changes to Washington State regulatory body policy (WSLCB) directly connected to events at this particular bar; it is noted in several local "top establishment" lists and in-depth reviews, as well as being noted as a best-in-nation by the national publication Esquire ; coverage spans from well before the 2021 arson until the present time.  When evaluating sources pls note KING-TV#Canadian and out-of-market coverage which states coverage extends well beyond the Puget Sound terrestrial broadcast area with 4 million+ potential viewers; it is carried in Eastern Washington, Canada, Alaska, and even the Bahamas.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy for this to be retained.   I struggled to find any meaningful links to other Wiki pages.   I know that isn't a reason for deletion, but it makes it harder to justify retention.  Perhaps those in favour of retention could add some wikilinks.  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , per comment by nominator --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:47, 23 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: speedy keep
Buffseeds: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years ; I hope we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 20:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but they do have an AllMusic bio here and album review here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep moving to full keep as they pass criterion 2 of WP:NMUSIC with four singles charting on the UK Official Singles Chart and they also had an album place in a secondary chart the UK Independent Albums Chart as shown here .  As well as the AllMusic sources linked above there is also coverage at PopMatters , and Exclaim here and here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after the commendable detective work carried out above by Atlantic306.  Chubbles ( talk ) 22:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per above, thanks, Atlantic306 , I'm convinced.  Boleyn ( talk ) 04:13, 22 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: speedy keep
Ankathatti: Does not appear on the 2011 census tables, found here: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables I am also unable to find any sources demonstrating notability.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Did find a mention of the village on one of the census tables.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 27 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: speedy keep
Battle of Sangrana: From what I can tell, this event was the casus belli for a larger battle which is described here- [13] and per Surjit Singh Gandhi's book- [14] .  This event is far better suited being accosted as the casus belli of the next battle wich actually seems to be consequential.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 12:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: Best suited for a redirect as per Moriwen.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Battle of Amritsar (1634) , after merging any well-sourced content.  The term "Battle of Sangrana" appears in a few books, so it doesn't seem like an implausible search term. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right.  I will go ahead and relist this an article for redirect.  Thank you.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 12 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: speedy keep
Chicago Strangler: As arrests have been made in this case, it's been a number of people committing two or three of the crimes attributed to this theoretical person.  It is much more likely that, instead of there being one Chicago Strangler, the violence perpetrated on these women is instead a reflection of the way in which we do not value the lives of women of color, especially women of color who engage in sex work.  Mhuertaschicago ( talk ) 20:25, 29 April 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 April 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mhuertaschicago , nothing you're writing constitutes a reason for deletion.  We have lots of articles about theoreticized concepts.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Agreeing with Geschichte.  Regarding your last sentence, see WP:OR and WP:RGW Atubofsilverware ( talk ) 03:35, 30 April 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: speedy keep
Australia's Most Wanted: Only refs are from IMDb, tv.com and ovguide.com.  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Crime ,  and Australia .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found two independent reviews from Australian newspapers.  " This crime show's more wanted than ever " in Melbourne's The Age (April 24, 1997), and " Murder, cops, and stand-up corpses " in The Sydney Morning Herald (March 8, 1989).  Furthermore, the article " Bryan's arresting success " in the Morning Herald (June 11, 1989) says " Australia's Most Wanted has been a hit right around Australia in the toughest spot on prime time TV."  Another article in the Morning Herald (Aug 10, 1989) backs up the article's claim that children were frightened by the program: " Australia's Most Wanted is murder for some children ".  Hit TV show, definitely notable.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per the sources @ Toughpigs provided Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 02:50, 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: speedy keep
Folkestone Vikings: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not my subject area and I'm not about to go digging for this stuff, but note that neither of the statements given in the nomination are deletion reasons - for any type of article.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV.   Or redirect to a page on their league, though I am not sure such a page exists.   The current iteration of their league, BAFA National Leagues does not describe the league in the 1980s and 1990s, and only lists defunct teams from 2000 and later, so that is not an ideal target.  Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree with Aydoh8's assessment of the nomination statement, and that being an WP:ORPHAN and the article not containing much useful information are not valid reasons.   I am okay if the AFD is procedurally closed for this reason despite my delete vote on other grounds.  Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 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!  06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per criteria 1.  There is no deletion rationale being proposed here.  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:33, 25 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: speedy keep
Audi DTM V8 engine: I've first proposed to merge this to Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine as they are the same as the production engines.  Well, the numbers suggest that they are, not as 'prototype' as the article creator claimed.  Since it sat unaddressed, I made the decision to merge, this got reverted because I forgot to add the editing summary.  I redid this, which again got reverted.  These articles are nothing but written stats without asserting notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : @ SpacedFarmer : when you place a maintenance tag on an article, including proposing a merge with a {{merge}} tag, you are expected to start the discussion, and no evidence of that being done exists before you, yet again, rush to deletion.  A basic WP:BEFORE check also should have landed coverage in Top Gear [11] and Jalopnik .  [12] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no comment on the substantive issue here, but must point out that SpacedFarmer did start a discussion , but nobody replied.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Phil Bridger : thanks for the correction.  I only checked Audi DTM V8 engine and not Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine .  My bad.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:N , plenty of sources.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Only one article here is nominated.  This is not how a bundled nomination is formatted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Article referenced and standardized with other articles about engines.  If there is a better explanation for the alleged "low quality", I will change my vote, but in principle, nothing justifies a WP:TNT .  Svartner ( talk ) 08:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Without prejudice on the merger.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Request to withdraw – I never got rerespond as I had been locked out of my account for the last few weeks.  Whilst I still believe this should be merged as they are the same, I think it is appropriate to continue any conversation into WP:CARS .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:29, 24 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: speedy keep
D. C. Douglas: Trivial mentioned sources like this [19] aren't helpful for GNG.  Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games .   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He seems to pass the subject-specific notability guideline of WP:NACTOR due to his numerous roles in notable works of media, and prolific acting career.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .   I suggest the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:NACTOR which is on the generous side.   Douglas easily has enough roles in significant productions to qualify.   The borderline cases for NACTOR are like "one moderately successful role, no sources at all on personal life, some minor stuff nobody cares about," which this topic is light-years ahead of.  SnowFire ( talk ) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Even NACTOR aside, multiple sources write about things that Douglas posts, like this .  As for COI and OWN issues, the former is easily rectified by any one other editor verifying whether there's NPOV issues or not; the latter, I don't see anything suggesting Douglas is edit warring, at least not recently.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NACTOR.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , even if the article is messy it meets WP:NACTOR , and possibly GNG (albeit weakly) per Cukie.  The conflict of interest is better off bringing up at the associated noticeboard .  λ Negative MP1 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I apologize for not being familiar with WP:NACTOR.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:54, 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: speedy keep
Leander Rising: Only notable for reality show participation.  Pottyantós WC ( talk ) 09:05, 23 September 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 September 23 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - nom made by indefinitely blocked editor.  Covers NSONG per charting songs anyway.  WP:GNG as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:56, 23 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: speedy keep