hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Billy Redden : But since it's been disputed, of course I'm now bringing it here.  My argument remains the same; one notable role as an actor should fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT , and I don't think the coverage does enough to pass that standard.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Georgia (U.S. state) .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Found another lengthy article in Chicago Tribune regarding his role in Burton's Big Fish that has not been cited yet.  Clearly a bit actor, but a very popular and identifiable one that IMO deserves a spot on the Wiki.  Failing a keep, Redirect to Deliverance .  DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 05:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Redirect, I appreciate the nom's position, though when there are articles significant enough that you could assert a degree of notability about the individual (like this from 2004 ), it may just scrape WP:BASIC .  That said, he didn't really have a notable career and the single-event point is valid, so I think a redirect is entirely feasible if there is no clear consensus to retain the article.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 15:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ONEEVENT is intended to be invoked for things like lottery winners who stumble into brief bursts of media coverage through no volition of their own.  In this case we have an actor, the subject of multiple instances of coverage in reputable sources.  The fact that he is known for only one role is neither here nor there; this is not a ONEEVENT situation but rather a (weak) GNG pass.  Carrite ( talk ) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems like there is sufficient coverage.  For WP:BLP1E to apply, all three criteria need to be met, and this one would fail on the basis of him not being a low profile individual.   Also, he's notable for more than one thing (two performances) which is what WP:NACTOR would need.  CT55555 ( talk ) 01:12, 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
Bardwell Road : Sources 3-5 are not independent.  Rs chen 7754 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Rs chen 7754 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — the road has its own entry in the Hibbert encyclopedia and Hinchcliffe book.  — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And again, is there more that can be written using those sources than just the road's existence?  -- Rs chen 7754 20:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly notable, sourced and meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously notable and well sourced.  No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 12:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well cited, notable, and meets WP:GNG .  Edwardx ( talk ) 13:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG.  I see nothing wrong with the buildings on the road having a brief description here and a more detailed treatment (hopefully) in their own articles.  This must happen all the time.  I imagine that Buckingham Palace has a mention in the article on London as well as it's own article.  P.S. Let me know if there is no article on Buckingham Palace and I will create it.  Philafrenzy ( talk ) 22:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there are multiple sources that indicate the subject of this article passes WP:GNG .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 16:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Satisfies GNG.  James500 ( talk ) 13:13, 24 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
UDig : There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:32, 21 March 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!  07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of UDig.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Both google books and google scholar immediately turn up lots of coverage (e.g. here , here , here ). — Moriwen ( talk ) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per sources found and I have found some others.  I question if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE or is WP:HERE as a majority of their recent contributions are AfDs with the same verbatim reason.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 09:34, 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!  07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per sources provided by @ Moriwen .  Svartner ( talk ) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: What new sources, User:Svartner ?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – @ User:Liz : "(e.g. here , here , here )" There are consistent reviews, and are also some academic works based on the software [47] [48] [49] .  Svartner ( talk ) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - multiple reliable, independent, and scholarly sources are available, ready to be included in the article.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources discussed in this AfD show notability through WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT .  - Aoidh ( talk ) 18:22, 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
Women in Cinema Collective : Also lacks WP:DIVERSE .  Sources are mostly sensationalized coverage and routine news surrounding controversies or such statements since its members are celebrities ( WP:INHERITORG ).  Inherent notability (assumed by media) has resulted in articles about its establishment and objectives and not based on their contributions or impact.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film .  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A non exhaustive search brings up plenty, this meets WP:NORG .  Here's 2 SIRS sources, and a couple more helpful ones Mathew, Jimin S; Isac, Alna Mariya.  , Journal of International Women's Studies Nair, Tara S.  Economic and Political Weekly (available on ProQuest via TWL to verify) Less in-depth but still helpful [4] (available on ProQuest via TWL to verify) Here's a another helpful source [5] .  It has a lot of background, then moves into statements from members, so borderline for SIRS.  — siro χ o 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:05, 24 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
Rockingham County Baseball League : There is no indication of independent sources providing coverage beyond routine game coverage.  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball , United States of America ,  and Virginia .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to be the oldest amateur baseball league in the U.S. ( [18] ) and has extensive coverage across its near-century of existence, e.g. [19] [20] [21] [22] , etc.  - Newspapers.com brings up 217,000 matches for the name of the league and the first several pages of results all look like feature stories on the RCBL.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Haven't looked further to see what else may be out there, but none of these sources contain the WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  This is full-page feature coverage, making your statement of none of these sources contain ...  WP:SIGCOV not true at all.  Really?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: This is a close call, as it appears that most of the newspapers.com results is just trivial and routine game coverage, but the second source from BeanieFan11 (apologies for somehow missing that one) combined with [ [23] ] shows this one clears the WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 02:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks to Beannie.  Meets our guidelines for inclusion.  Lightburst ( talk ) 02:49, 21 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
Opinion polling for the next German federal election : While the elections themselves and politicians being elected are indubitably notable, ongoing opinion poll scores can hardly be argued to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." ( WP:NOTEVERYTHING ).  Kleuske ( talk ) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Germany .  Kleuske ( talk ) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There are so many polling pages, why is only the German one for deletion?  Braganza ( talk ) 15:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Utterly bizarre deletion request.  Polling pages have been around forever.  Is the idea to delete every single one, both past and future?  Of course this article should be kept.  Spaastm ( talk ) 00:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] N Keep .  Does not meet WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  Elk Salmon ( talk ) 04:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , of course — Just like every other "polls page for the next election" in every country.  MaeseLeon ( talk ) 09:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and keep all other opinion polling articles in Wikipedia.  Ed88 ( talk ) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Opinion polling articles usually exist as splits of the articles for the election due to size concerns.  Especially when there is a lot of polling such as here.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NOTDATABASE .  To quote the exact rule: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" are discouraged but goes on to give an example of a proper use of statistics: "statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election ".  This is the same situation here.  Yeoutie ( talk ) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly an acceptable article for the site.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a larger discussion on whether there's any value in maintaining rolling opinion poll graphs like this at all anymore, but in the absence of a consensus to quash them all across the board there's no reason to single the German election polling out as uniquely less noteworthy than every other country's election polling.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:17, 16 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
Nurbani Yusuf : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Politicians , Women , Law ,  and Beauty pageants .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NACTOR imv, although the pages about 3/4 of notable films in which she played lead/significant roles are not blue (yet).  She also probably meets GNG for her career as lawyer/politician (plenty of books in Indonesian and some in English mention her). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What did you find during your WP:BEFORE , Allan Nonymous ?  What is your assessment of the sources in this article?  A source analysis table would be helpful.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, I looked at a few of the sources here.  I was unable to review all the articles here, as some of them are in Indonesian, but here are the ones I was able to find.  (Not good at tables so this will have to do.)  KOMPASS: Returns a dead link to no article.  What and Who: Not really a notable source, just a big list.  Harian AB, Selecta: Was unable to find the notability of these magazines, nor the sources themselves, so I felt it was insufficient.  Dynamics of Dissent (English Book): This source only mentions her in passing, once, as far as I can tell, which is insufficient coverage.  Jakarta Magazine: Does seem to be notable, but again, was unable to find the source.  detikx: No mention of her name.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Besides the sources in the article, there is also this , this , this and this which should be enough for GNG.  Probably also passes NACTOR.  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [13] .  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 [14] [15] .  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.  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
Joshua Jay : Notability is not established.  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most statements are unsourced, the rest is in non-RS.  Salon is about the best I can find, [10] , but that's all there is.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I found a number of reviews and articles about him in The New York Times , including this review of one of his magic shows , a detailed article about his marriage , an article about his magic collection , and coverage of him teaching prisoners magic by mail .  I also found coverage of him in The Austin Chronicle ( link ), Forbes ( link ), The Plain Dealer ( link ), The Harvard Gazette ( link ), Leaders Magazine ( link ), The OSU Alumni Magazine ( link ), Playbill ( link ), and other places.  There are even reviews and coverage of his magic books on Boing Boing ( link ), The Guam Daily Post ( link ) and WCPO ( link ) while the Wikipedia Library shows coverage of his magic work in magazines and journals such as Boys' Life , Entertainment Weekly , i-Perception, Journal of Hand Therapy, Odyssey, and other places.  Finally, he's appeared on major TV shows including The Today Show ( link ) and the Late Late Show with James Corden ( link ).  Yes, the article needs work but all of this coverage shows Jay meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 14:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review the sources presented here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Per the sources found by SouthernNights and Oaktreeb, this subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR .  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep these new sources are valid and demonstrate N. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:06, 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
William Charles Hood : You nominated it for deletion after my first three edits!  You account seems to exist only to nominate articles for deletion!  Jack1956 ( talk Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  User:Jeffhardyfan08 , you appear to have nominated this article while it was under construction.  If you look at it again, I believe you will see that it now has sufficient references.  Would you kindly withdraw the nomination?   -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how to withdraw nominations, but if someone could kindly do it, that would be fine.  Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 00:33, 27 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
Jimmy the Greek (restaurant) : It is just a fast food franchise with locations in many malls in the Greater Toronto Area, BC and Alberta.  That doesn't make it notable.  There is no significant media coverage and most media coverage is trivial.  747pilot ( talk ) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Canada .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easy to find GNG references.  Toronto Star , Toronto Sun .  This Winnipeg Free Press article is a bit brief, but isn't bad either - ProQuest 752159654 .  BEFORE failure.  Generally, well known restaurants such as this and Osmow's will be notable, and more work checking for references needs to be done before nominating.  Can you please withdraw this nomination, User:747pilot ?  Nfitz ( talk ) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and agree that it would be best if User:747pilot would withdraw their nomination.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article rightfully already survived a previous AfD.   Should not have been re-nominated.   It appears User:747pilot suddenly retired after placing this nomination, so unlikely they will withdraw.  Locu ( talk ) 16:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, they changed their name to User:user b12u3ewq1561 and then did seem to retire.  I certainly hope that wasn't because I objected to some AFDs.  I hope they continue here - I'm troubled by some of their nominations, but others were good.  Just needs a bit more research, that's all.  Nfitz ( talk ) 22:21, 24 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