hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Dylan Scicluna : Nath1991 ( talk ) 02:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Nath1991 ( talk ) 02:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Young player with ongoing pro career already with sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I can't see why Times of Malta with Optus wouldn't be enough for WP:GNG Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Sources exist (Times of Malta and Optus).  Ideally, there would be a couple more good sources but I don't think it would be appropriate to delete/ draftily with two good sources already in the article.   ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 23:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , page needs expansion not deletion. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:43, 28 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
Kalynivske, Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast : Onel 5969 TT me 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG as worded.  Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, though the outcome is to the detriment of this project Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement and thus meets WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 18:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 23:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per GEOLAND and the sad fact that even minute Ukrainian locations are suddenly becoming relevant this year.  I hope this place can stay out of the news.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - none of the keep ! votes are actually based in policy, since there is not any sourcing showing that this is a legally recognized place, nor is there any in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969 TT me 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : see here for direct evidence that Kalynivske is a government-recognised town in Velykomykhailivka rural hromada (it's listed fifth in the composition of the hromada).  Mupper-san ( talk ) 21:26, 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
Great Directors : Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very Strong Keep .  In-depth coverage in: The Denver Post https://www.denverpost.com/2010/07/21/movie-review-great-directors-provides-good-overview/ ARTS ATL [5] Time out [6] The Culturist The Hollywood Reporter [7] NPR among other things.... !!!!!! Also please see Interview about the film in the NYT - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to nominator , @ UtherSRG : would you consider withdrawing this nomination?  Thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) (also have a look at the first nomination, please) [ reply ] Delete Interviewing famous people doesn't, alone, bring notability to the interviewer.  The abovementioned sources are rather focusing on the "lineup" of the film than the film itself and the director.  ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 01:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Interviewing famous people doesn't, alone, bring notability to the interviewer.  No but  1) we are discussing a film not a person  2) various reviews in very reliable media (I did not wish to leave the link to The Culturist, which is not really great in any way, in the list but I left it by mistake and will leave it; there are other sources anyway but the list above is more than sufficient) do establish notability of a film.  The abovementioned sources are rather focusing on the "lineup" of the film than the film itself and the director is absolutely not true !  They do focus on the film and its content.  Because I am not going to quote them all verbatim to prove it, I'm inviting other users to read them and confirm these are reviews in reliable independent sources.  This film is obviously very clearly notable and I still hope the user who initiated this discussion will withdraw this nomination.  Notability had been established at the 1st Afd and, as obvious as this may seems, it's very easy to confirm that it's still clear, very very clear.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 02:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seem to be plenty of reviews in the usual places.  I'm not really seeing a rationale to delete.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No further comment NYT LAT Guardian DVD Talk ....  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 05:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the full reviews of the film in very reliable sources such as The Guardian, The New York Times and LA Times as well as many other reviews linked above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:45, 12 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
Nicor Gas : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Illinois .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ बिनोद थारू can you please explain the level of WP:BEFORE searches you did before bringing this AfD?  I easily found several reliable-source articles that discuss the article subject at length: Robert Kelter, Peace, Love, Competition.  An Initial Look at the Restructuring of Illinois Residential Energy Markets, 33 Loy.  U. Chi.  L. J. 875 (2002) [74] SEC Probes Accounting Problems at NICOR [75] State regulators clamp down on Nicor Gas [76] It seems this should be withdrawn.   Failing that, it should be keep on the rule that decisions about notability depend on the existence of sources and not the state of sourcing in the article.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree to your comment.  I misread the WP:CORP guideline as requiring notability beyond WP:SIGCOV but it turns out it's sufficient, as long as the sources are reliable (more strict reliability criteria though).  I will withdrawn the nomination.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:17, 21 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
Phoner : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, only refs are WP:PRIMARY .  Does not seem to meet notability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  May need a bit of copy editing.  Quick WP:BEFORE shows it seems to pass GNG.  Evaluation in journals [5] [6] .  Some inclusion on lists [7] [8] .   Very likely more in German language.  — siro χ o 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  No sign of WP:BEFORE .  More than 2 words in the nom.  statement could help direct editors evaluating these.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The current sources on the page do not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria.  -- Onetimememorial ( talk ) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Onetimememorial I've added the 4 references I found above to the article — siro χ o 20:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The SandDoctor Talk 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - the academic references are okay for barely meeting WP:GNG ; neither was cited much.  The lists seem irrelevant to me.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 01:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:30, 15 July 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!  23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking delete per Siroxo.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:04, 16 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
Nadav Shoval : Sources are either about OneWeb with a quote from or mention of the CEO, interview based, staff/contributor bios, mentions in lists of other entrepreneurs, or written directly by the subject.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Advertising ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  I noted N12 TV segment about him (2017), Globes article about him (2021), and being featured in Forbes 30 under 30 (2024).  Combined this seems enough to demonstrate deep coverage by major national-scope reliable sources over a significant duration.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Marokwitz .  For a variety of reasons, substantially covered.  gidonb ( talk ) 09:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The person meets WP:BASIC criteria, as there are sufficient independent, reliable, and trustworthy sources (not routine strange fake news agencies but big media outlets), several of which I have added, such as Globes and ICE.  Additionally, I support the arguments presented in the comments above -- Moem-Meom ( talk ) 11:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Shoval's company, OpenWeb, is huge.  Notability isn't inherited, but the sheer number of perennial sources covering him, along with the recent Forbes recognition, meets WP:GNG in my books.  TLA (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nadav Shoval is notable as the founder and CEO of OpenWeb.  His notability per WP:BASIC is gained via recognition in many reliable sources both Israel-based and international. .  -- Mind-blowing blow ( talk ) 09:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Charles Bernard Day : TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Alabama ,  and Maryland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A magistrate judge who was nominated for a federal judgeship more than likely confers notability.  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 03:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How, besides your personal opinion?  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep , given the unusual circumstances of the Senators from this state commenting on the failure of this nomination.  BD2412 T 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't that normal for failed nominees?  See Michael Delaney [1] .  I'd argue that notability stemming from failure to be confirmed must be evaluated from coverage of the failure itself (n.b. Arianna Freeman).  Home-state senators commenting on failed nominees is to be expected; they'd provided blue slips and have a vested interest in seeing someone from their state confirmed.  That's WP:ROUTINE .  I seult Δx parlez moi 06:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know whether it is to be "expected"; it is something I have rarely actually seen .  BD2412 T 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is typically the case indeed, since district court judges are recommended in the first place by the home state senators.  Thus, it is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet any other notability criteria.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Nom's POV has caused them to misjudge GNG with regard to this subject.  Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:11, 3 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
Clementine Douglas : Not many sources/references...  Regards – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90 ( 🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs ) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - what's the basis for deletion?  Top 10 UK single and national award: satisfies WP:MUSICBIO .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5, could do with expanding but not in need of deletion.  Shaws username .  talk .  13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There is only one paragraph, the only source of any substance is one created by the artist herself or her fan base, and in the songs mentioned she was only a collaborating artist.  My research has only found one independent song by her.  I think a WP article about her at this point is premature.  Uppagus ( talk ) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clear cut WP:MUSICBIO #5.  She is within Wikipedias guidelines for inclusion.  WP:GNG does also apply.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:53, 16 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
Luke Duke : A quick search shown nothing which would allow this character to be notable in any way.  Worst of all, it has been unsourced since 2009.  If any editor could find enough reliable sources to scrape notability guidelines, I'd happily revoke the discussion.  ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television ,  and Military .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably enough to work into the article [20] , [21] and this [22] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 14 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!  23:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article could still use more work, but added more sources.  Meets WP:GNG and if anything the problem is having to comb through tons of coverage to find the diamonds.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nice work, Cielquiparle.  Much respect.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : the current article doesn't have enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV .  Based on the sources found, which are still thin, I believe the article has WP:POTENTIAL and should be given a chance to improve.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:56, 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
For a Lost Soldier : Article has only 2 citations, and no objective or reliable sources other than 2 opinion reviews.  No other sources related to this film exist.  DocZach ( talk ) 07:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE: I retract my nomination for the article to be deleted.  DocZach ( talk ) 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE: I RETRACT MY NOMINATION DocZach ( talk ) 22 March 2024 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  DocZach ( talk ) 07:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Netherlands .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reviews in The New York Times , The Los Angeles Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer are enough to satisfy WP:NFILM .  ("The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.")  I also see reviews on newspapers.com from The Boston Globe , The Ottawa Citizen and The Cincinnati Enquirer .  I also added an article from The San Francisco Examiner : " A Homosexual Coming-of-Age Story: Director takes risk on WWII story ".  The film has received coverage in independent reliable sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , you clearly state it has 2 "opinion" reviews (and aren't all reviews just someone's opinion).  Two reviews is all WP:NFILM requires for notability.  Donald D23 talk to me 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sufficient reviews to keep this, and Toughpigs has noted that there is scope for expansion.  The article seems more notable than the average American war film .  Less stereotypical as well.  Dimadick ( talk ) 11:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Very clearly notable.  Nominator seems to have an objection to the film's content rather than its notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:38, 19 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
Waters of Mormon : What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point.  No secondary sources cover this topic in depth.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity ,  and Latter Day Saints .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page" .  Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016).  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Book of Mormon places , I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon , the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy 's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism ; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry).  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 04:14, 29 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!  06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Bogus nomination.  X ( talk ) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Profound Lore Records : -- Viennese Waltz 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Easily found plenty of sources that focus on the label and the majority of artists it signs on are notable.  HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 16:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which three sources are you suggesting to support the company's NCORP?  Graywalls ( talk ) Graywalls ( talk ) 01:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Certainly is one of the more important indie labels in the sense used at WP:MUSIC .  HadesTTW has also just added a raft of sources.  Chubbles ( talk ) 12:55, 25 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