hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Leven distillery : BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has reliable independent news coverage sources John baost ( talk ) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notability established, sufficient news articles and a lot of sources out there to expand article too.  Coldupnorth ( talk ) 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there are good reliable sources to cover the subject properly.  -- 2A01:E0A:375:3810:B82B:91C2:DC5C:A05F ( talk ) 16:41, 2 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
The Oregon Extension : Only non-primary hit is from a student newspaper; all other search results are apparently about an unrelated expansion of the national park in which the program takes place.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , United States of America ,  and Oregon .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article author has self-declared COI, see here .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Oregon Extension is a 48 year old university level education program.  Not associated with any one university, it intentionally consists of a small select group of students and faculty.  Failing to meet Fermiboson standard of GNG does not equate to unworthiness to be published on this site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonDias19 ( talk • contribs ) 03:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have added sources and content.  Some sources are campus newspapers.  However, there is an entire chapter in a book as well as signification coverage in an Oxford University Press book.  Sources confirm notability.  Rublamb ( talk ) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the book sources described above that have been added to the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:35, 19 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
Grove Park Business and Enterprise College : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Oasis Academy Mayfield , or keep per WP:RECENT / WP:NTEMP .  Although there aren't many sources relating to it under this final name, there are many more that relate to its previous name (Weston Park Boys' School) - enough to easily satisfy WP:GNG .  Perhaps the article should be renamed to that more common name.  W a g ge r s TALK 10:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to Oasis Academy Mayfield per Waggers.  No good rationale given for deletion.  Purely opinion.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It looks as though the Grove Park name was short-lived, but I haven't found a source dating the change of name from Weston Park.  This about the school's football team winning the national English schools under-16 football trophy uses the Weston Park name in 2005.  [64] The article states Grove Park was closed in 2008.   Oasis Academy I believe has been built on the Weston Park/Grove Park site so could in essence be seen as a continuing educational institution under a different name, management and new buildings, but against this is that it's a merger of two schools.  Notes on the predecessor schools in the Oasis Academy Mayfield history section would help to explain how the current academy came into being.  If kept the article should probably be retitled "Weston Park Boys' Secondary School".  The National Archives just refers to the Weston Park name.  [65] .  Worth reading this for background.  [66] .  Rupples ( talk ) 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG .  Rename to Weston Park Boys' School as the common name over the life span of this school.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree with renaming.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:32, 22 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
Crossland College : The PROD was later removed by an IP with the rationale "I found https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=861978 in Google News" .  The source they referenced is just talking about the school principal being awarded a non-notable "best principal" award (not to mention the website is full of spammy advertisements, so it's likely not a WP:RS ) without discussing anything else about the college nor helps further establish any notability for the college.  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India .  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - This college appears to be comparatively more notable than some other colleges and universities in India.  There appears to be some RS (ish) coverage by The Hindu , The Deccan Herald , Mangalore Today and two articles in Daji World as noted by the nominator themselves.  -- Sohom Datta ( talk ) 00:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Sohom Datta added references.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:54, 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: keep
Körner und Köter : I don't speak German but I'm not seeing much which could be considered JMWt ( talk ) 10:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Germany .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The current version fails WP:DICDEF .  I found TV reviews from Tittelbach.tv [ de ] and TV Spielfilm , here: [31] [32] .  This article (cited by de:wiki) described the show as a flop, this reports from its production.  Thus, the series is notable, but the current page is worthless.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I wish people wouldn't make one sentence stubs like this.  I have expanded the article using Geschichte's sources and some Google Translate.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and thanks to StreetcarEnjoyer for doing the legwork.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:18, 18 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
Samla Mammas Manna : Has an AllMusic bio and a handful of reviews from the same, but I don't see anything else.  Unless we wanna just assume this band was getting covered all the time in the Scandinavian press but none of that has been digitized and I can't find any of it, then I'm not seeing any other coverage and don't see notability met here.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Måltid .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Samla Mammas Manna are a pretty important piece of Swedish music history.  There's a long-ish article in Göteborgs-Posten from 1994 ("Nu Samlas Mammas Manna – bandet uppstår i lyckliga stunder"), where they are referred to as "the legendary 70s band".  w:sv:Dan Backman referred to them as "one of the flagships of Swedish progressive rock" in a review in 1999, and so on.  They were mainly active in the 70s, but a newspaper archive like w:sv:Mediearkivet which mainly has material from the 2000s, and some from the 90s, still give 439 hits in print media.  If I understand correctly, Håkan Lagher's 1999 book Proggen : musikrörelsens uppgång och fall also writes about them, but I don't have the book and can't verify.  Anyway: I've started adding basic sourcing, more can be done, I'm of the strong opinion that this article should be kept.  / Julle ( talk ) 17:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh wow.  Glad you came along.  I'm not familiar with Mediearkivet but if there's really that many hits already then there's probably gotta be more of value out there than I would have access to.  Assuming you're going to continue sorting through those and bulking this article up, then I'm willing to withdraw this immediately.   Thanks!  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a paid service and only available in Swedish, so most people don't have access to it, but most staff or students at a Swedish university ought to have access, and Wikimedia Sweden has paid for access for Wikipedians who need it.  / Julle ( talk ) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above; also noting that the All Music Guide reviews are editorial, not user-submitted, and thus count toward WP:NMUSIC .  Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 00:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable Swedish band that is very influential in the worldwide progressive rock community (not just locally in Sweden).  Klausness ( talk ) 12:34, 21 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
Part W : A quick preliminary check didn't appear to unearth much more.  Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Architecture ,  and Sexuality and gender .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are diverse, notable and independent sources, beyond industry-specific journals, that refer to the practice and demonstrate notability, for example: Financial Times , The Guardian , Architects' Journal .  Disclosure: I was the reviewer when the article passed AfC review -- AntientNestor ( talk ) 21:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets GNG.  A publication being specific to an industry is not an adequate reason to discount it entirely.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 20:28, 28 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
Clinton body count conspiracy theory : Is an article about a conspiracy theory that is unlikely to be true.   From the article: Several sources have discredited the conspiracy theory, such as Congressional Record,[11] the Lakeland Ledger, the Chicago Tribune, Snopes and others; pointing to detailed death records, the unusually large circle of associates that a president is likely to have, and the fact that many of the people listed had been misidentified or were still alive.  Others had no known link to the Clintons .  p b p 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Arkansas .  p b p 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Its a widely referenced conspiracy theory.  The wiki documents it and the debunking and the first sentence says its not true.  The Clinton body count is a disproven conspiracy theory Softlemonades ( talk ) 19:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- just because a conspiracy theory isn't true doesn't mean it's not notable.  That this one is is shown clearly by the sources already in the article.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep look at all the new deaths, the theory may not be disproven, just not accepted yet.  75.169.169.36 ( talk ) 02:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clintons which could be expanded a bit naming some of the most commonly claimed "victims" but which already says about what this article says in a very short paragraph.  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are plenty of sources showing the conspiracy theory's notability ( WP:NFRINGE ).  Isi96 ( talk ) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The theory being false doesn't negate the fact it has received WP:SIGCOV and thus meets WP:GNG .  And, its not as if the article presents the conspiracy theory as fact.  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 13:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NHOAX : " Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes . " As the nominator observes, this conspiracy is prominent enough to have been debunked by several major publications.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:55, 3 August 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
Sunak (disambiguation) : There's only one other topic other than the Rishi Sunak page, and that is Sunak, Pasinler .  Maybe the hatnote in the Rishi Sunak article can be changed to: "Sunak" redirects here.  Not to be confused with Sunac or Sunaka .  For the village in Turkey, see Sunak, Pasinler .  RM X Y ( talk ) 02:58, 29 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 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:ONEOTHER .  Wasn't this deleted once before?  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] answer to self: yes, as a G14 .  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 03:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per additions.  Clyde [trout needed] 06:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two villages in India.  One is probably notable (population 3122, with a temple that is mentioned in Rama Lakshamana Temple, Baradia and in an image caption in Hinduism ).  Peter James ( talk ) 12:38, 30 September 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!  03:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added two villages, the one in India ( https://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/509262-sunak-gujarat.html ) and another in Russia.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:13, 7 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!  03:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to me that there are enough entries to have a disamb page.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , with the new entries, seems just enough.  NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with the new additions a valid disambiguation page.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:12, 20 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
Edward FitzClarence, 6th Earl of Munster : microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 14:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If he sat in a national parliament, then he is automatically notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete at least for now - I haven't been able to independently verify any of this information through a cursory source search.  SportingFlyer T · C 18:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Members of the House of Lords pass WP:NPOL .  There is not a ton in terms of coverage, but I think he narrowly surpasses WP:NOPAGE with his Hansard entry and this obit .  Not many British newspapers of this period are digitized on newspapers.com, sources likely offline or in other repositories.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL.  Ingratis ( talk ) 06:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as he was a member of the House of Lords and meets NPOL.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as other have noted the fact he was a member of the House of Lords  - a national legislative body - would seem to mean he passes WP:NPOL .  Dunarc ( talk ) 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:03, 4 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
Coralline : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retarget to Coral , which should discuss all of the topics currently on the page, if it does not already.  BD2412 T 23:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Guys, not everything that looks like a partial match is a partial match.  As evident from the article Coralline algae (whose topic, by the way, is unrelated to corals), the term "coralline" is used as a noun (most often in the plural) to refer to algae  in this group.  So that's one valid entry.  Other meanings can be verified from, among others, the Oxford English Dictionary, which has two relevant pages: [47] and [48] .  "Corraline" can mean 'resembling coral ' or ' coral in colour '.  As a noun, it can further refer to the rock that coral reefs are made from (which is unrelated to Coralline rock ), and (in a usage that is probably outdated now) to organisms that resemble corals, like bryozoans.  – Uanfala ( talk ) 11:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if Coralline Rock and Coralline Algae are partial matches, then what isn't a partial match with them?  The words "algae" and "rock"?  Some of these may be adjectives but there's nothing else to disambiguate the articles by.  This is therefore helpful.  Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 12:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A useful disambig between the rock and the algae- "between a rock and a squishy place" perhaps?  :) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 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