hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Alex Fridman: He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions.  Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance.  Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos.  Your opinions?  זור987 ( talk ) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, זור987 , This AFD is not in the correct format for an article deletion discussion.  Please review WP:AFD and follow the directions precisely.  Look at other AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 29 for guidance on how it should appear and be formatted.  This AFD is not listed on the daily AFD log page either and no deletion sorting has been done so it is unlikely that other editors will even know this discussion exists.  I'd tag this page for deletion and start over from scratch following the guidelines on the AFD instruction page.  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Liz : I tried this and non-stop failing to put the article in the daily AFD log page .  Can you do this instead?  זור987 ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted.  "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly?  The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent.  I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all?  Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now.  -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Disability , Israel ,  and Belarus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established.  Why delete? -- Geewhiz ( talk ) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes the GNG and AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability has been well established with reliable sources.  Easily passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 06:30, 31 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
Irena Justine: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television ,  and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree, the article subject doesn’t meet notability requirements.  Nate Higgers ( talk ) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  And improve with the help of the (WP) pages in Indonesian about her and the films/series she played in, and that seem to show she meets WP:NACTOR although she died young. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  According to WP:NACTOR , the individual must have had substantial roles in various notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.  However, the person in question does not meet this requirement, as they have never portrayed lead roles or appeared in notable films.  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems important, and references seem legit.  In general, multiple references talking about the subject like this is probably enough to indicate notability.  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :* Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [34] .  He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [35] [36] .  202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:14, 4 April 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!  01:23, 6 April 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!  01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references from the Indonesian article.  I think she had many important roles.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subjects who are notable in Indonesia are just as important as subjects who are notable in the US, and article editors are improving the references.  rspεεr ( talk ) 17:50, 18 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: keep
Spice cake: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV .  BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question .  Is this similar enough to Spiced breads for a move ?  Bearian ( talk ) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think a spiced bread or spice bread article exists (the latter is a redirect to the spice cake article).  Are you thinking of sliced bread ?  BaduFerreira ( talk ) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Spice cake is a cake whose most prominent characteristic is the inclusion of strongly flavored spices.   It is a category of related cakes, like fruitcake or chocolate cake.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This is my absolutely favorite type of cake but I don't think this makes me involved here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Relying primarily on "Cake" by Sally Parham in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America , I there are two possible scopes for this article.   The one that interests me most is the butter cake version after the baking powder revolution.   However, there's also the much older yeast-based spice cakes from the 17th and 18th centuries ( Martha Washington's great cake is at the tail end of that), which may be what Bearian is thinking of.   If you imagine one of these spice-and-currants cakes, originally rather more like Raisin bread than like a layer cake, a modern spice cake translates that flavor profile out of the original yeast bread or the heavy fruit cake and into a modern butter cake.   Parham writes 'The old fruited, spiced cakes baked for tea, too, were dragooned into the new butter cake family... Already darkened, if only slightly, by fruit and spice, these cakes gathered into a new clutch of butter cakes that were intentionally darkened to a fare-thee-well—by spices and brown sugar or molasses, to make “spice cakes”.'  She also says spice cake was the second most popular category of butter cake during the 20th century (after chocolate, before vanilla), and that they adapted to the mid-century vegetable oil trend nicely.   Examples of modern spice cakes include Applesauce cake , Carrot cake , and Gingerbread , as well as some less common ones, such as Gâteau de Sirop or Parkin (cake) .  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've found coverage in Food & Wine, Southern Living, and The Daily Meal with just a very brief search.  I don't see any signs this dish isn't notable.  Valereee ( talk ) 18:47, 13 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: keep
The People's Republic of Amnesia: There appears to be only 1 decent review from NY times.  But doesn't meet WP:NBOOK .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BEFORE fail.  WaPo mentions it, this year, demonstrating it has enduring coverage.  Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban... we'd better have a really airtight case for deleting, and this ain't it.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban." is not a criteria for WP:NBOOK .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's a criteria for a project built on NOTCENSORED, which I happen to believe applies to this case based on the WaPo article I cited.  Consider beefing up your BEFORE, withdrawing the nomination, or accept the residual risk of appearing to have nomination priorities congruent with a totalitarian regime.  That may be totally OK with you, but I would consider having myself apparently so aligned a pretty negative thing.  Cheers, Jclemens ( talk ) 00:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest you tone down your aggressive tone.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NBOOK .  Numerous reviews, including in Krikus Reviews , Publishers Weekly , The Guardian , Wall Street Journal .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also added a link to the Times review already in the article, which is accessible through TWL.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks LibStar ( talk ) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : several reviews in serious RS.  Have done some tidying up - removed the umpteen repeated links to the author, removed a duplicated ref, and fixed the curly quotes.  Pam D 09:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the Reception section shows notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable, while the article might not have shown notability, remember to check WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per coverage in reviews.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 22:08, 28 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
Ana Book Store: Article seems pretty trivial to me.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete :Regardless of how trivial this article may be.  I’m of the opinion, that any topic which has a descent amount of sources covering it is deserving of a Wikipedia page, as for this article which I have written, the citations are well distributed and there are a good number of references, so I don’t really see the issue, here.  Stewmuhn ( talk ) 06:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets GNG.  I note also that all the sources we have on the present article are recent, while the store itself is quite old, so there probably is more coverage out there.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was dubious myself, but IMHO this subject has sufficient direct detailing in multiple independent sources to meet general notability.   Well done page creator!  I mean no disrespect to the nominator; their assumptions may prove to be perfectly valid.  BusterD ( talk ) 15:40, 7 July 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
Chester Aaron: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The problem here is this author's works were mainly published before the internet so there's less info available online.  Add in that the article needs a lot of work and I understand why questions on this author's notability were raised.  However, a search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a ton of reviews and coverage of his work in places like North American Review, School Library Journal, Horn Book Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Publishing Research Quarterly, and other places.  The WP even has a Newsweek article about his work as a garlic farmer and I also found this NYT review of one of his books from 1972 .  Aaron doesn't seems like he was a great writer of children's books -- many of the reviews are negative -- but he was widely published and reviewed and meets our WP:Author notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:10, 12 November 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!  23:34, 18 November 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!  22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He meets the WP:Author Notability.  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Didn’t find much about him, yet he seems a notable WP:Author by seeing his work . I found some the third party sources, 1 , 2 , 3 that at least credits his career as a writer.  Atighot ( talk ) 00:53, 1 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
Rosemary Gillespie: As well as Australian database trove.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I found coverage of her on news sites as an author and human rights activist for PNG, Fiji and Indigenous Australians and citations of her books and articles.  I can show her notability by expanding her article and adding more references over the next week so please do not delete.  LPascal ( talk ) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Substantial coverage in a range of sources, not least the parliamentary debate where the speaker says she " is well known to this country through her activism in the South Pacific and her current role in Bougainville, which has been going on for some time."  Pam D 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I note that the article has been substantially upgraded and many more sources added since the nomination, and invite the nominator to consider withdrawing the AfD now that Gillespie's notability is better demonstrated.  Pam D 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree.  This article should be kept.  Bduke ( talk ) 08:33, 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: keep
Marine Tanguy: Reads like COI Assirian cat ( talk ) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Arts ,  and France .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Rather easy to find RS, these are the first two from Gnews [10] , [11] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as Oaktree b says above there are long profile pieces which seem to suggest notability.  They seem to me to be largely interviews but with sufficient critical editorial to be useable as a RS.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:10, 17 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
Phosphorus pentaiodide: Keres🌕 Luna edits!  05:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's a debated topic in the chemical research community, [10] , there are about 4 pages in Gscholar mentioning the compound.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's present in the discourse [11] , if apparently a bit of a fringe topic.  Sourcing in current article doesn't look too bad either.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:23, 16 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
Phaedra Al-Majid: No objection to a redirect to Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid#Bribery .  // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below.  Giant Snowman 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found (which go into her background): [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , and [64] , among many more sources.   Ironically, the nominator of this article  voted to keep another WP:BLP1E AfD, saying that the nominator of deleting that article was "simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context".  Article needs improvement not deletion m.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 22:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Although the stub article does need to be significantly improved.  It's barely a one sentence stub, and it needs to be expanded considerably.  CycloneYoris talk!  11:00, 22 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
Ahmed Muhammad Ketso: It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours.  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: He appears to meet WP:NPOL as the deputy governor of Niger State .  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 02:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria .  Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Have only one sentence.  Doesn't pass general notability .  either.  Very poor article.  Even that one source seems fishy tbh.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — unless the notability guidelines for politicians has changed, this subject is notable as the deputy governor of Niger State .  I wanted to close this discussion myself but I’m hasitating in doing so.  I have improved the article to something readable but I guess I should advise this user that deletion is not cleanup.  Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 18:40, 23 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
List of bus companies of the Philippines: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of links to Wikipedia articles, making this a valid navigational list.   Navigational lists are far more useful than categories since more information can be listed, helping people find what they are looking for.   Remove anything that doesn't have its own article or a section in another article.  D r e a m Focus 18:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are plenty of blue linked entries.  Article can be improved by clearing out the unsourced, non-notable entries.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep valid list but needs TLC though.  I'll give it a go.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Enough blue links to justify the existence of this list.  Agletarang ( talk ) 11:43, 15 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