hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Amy Davidson (disambiguation) : There are only two entries — the actress Amy Davidson and the journalist — and the hatnote atop the actress' entry states, " For the journalist, see Amy Davidson Sorkin . " The only other dab page entry is a WP:DABMENTION for a state-level high school basketball player from 37 years ago — a single mention of such low notability as to preclude the need to force creation of a dab page.  — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 April 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 April 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there were 3 entries which meet the criteria for inclusion at MOS:DABENTRY , so it is a valid page.  I looked to see if there were missing entries, and there were, so I added those.  I am not seeing any reference to policy in this nomination, and it doesn't appear that thew creator was informed, so you may wish to do that.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reference to policy was indicated at the time of this nomination's posting as WP:ONEOTHER (i.e. one primary topic and one subsidiary topic).  As for notifying the creator, I had visited this user's talk page and saw notice of an indefinite ban imposed over a year ago (including editing own talk page).  — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a useful disambiguation page that serves the interests of readers better than stuffing all of this information in a hatnote, or omitting potential useful information from being findable altogether.  BD2412 T 00:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BD2412, it serves a valid navigation function.  // Timothy :: talk 18:43, 18 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
Rajendra Meena : Fails WP:NPOL .  Author has been creating a lot of these unsourced stubs, and none of them seem notable enough for keeping.  CycloneYoris talk!  19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics ,  and India .  CycloneYoris talk!  19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Per NPOL as member of state legislative body.  Djflem ( talk ) 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Subject does pass WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator, but this is currently an unsourced BLP.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Notable, passes NPOL; but it is a biography, shouldn't this be BLPPRODded before this AfD?  Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 06:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Passes NPOL as MLA.  For citations, see India Today , The Times of India and The Indian Express .  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  07:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep I've added a source which mentions his full name.  Should be more obvious now that this passes WP:NPOL .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the recent addition of citations, this passes NPOL.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:08, 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
The Corkman : Grumpylawnchair ( talk ) 20:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Grumpylawnchair ( talk ) 20:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Comment- if you search the corkman on google it shows this with the name "Cork News Today | The Corkman Newspaper", they have expanded to have news from multiple cities & that is why the section is labeled Cork.  also here are the newspaper archives: Here & Here .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 20:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notwithstanding the issues with identifying WP:SIGCOV of a newspaper title (as newspapers rarely cover each other and when they cover themselves, it raises WP:IS issues), it seems to me that this newspaper does have notability - independent of the newspaper group of which it forms part.  As part of my own WP:BEFORE , I have found examples of coverage - and added much of it to the article .  While its not exactly a slam dunk, where things are marginal (and in particular for a topic like this) I would err on the side of a "keep"...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment looks notable, rich history and milestones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assirian cat ( talk • contribs ) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - a notable local newspaper Spleodrach ( talk ) 20:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the reference below the article provided notability.  -Lemonaka‎ 14:15, 29 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
Catastrophic illness : Its entire content can be covered by the notable topic Disease and others within medicine.  This is not a formal medical term, either.  Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk ) 19:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is also an insurance term.  Some insurance companies sell catastrophic illness policies, recognizing the specific financial needs of people who are struck with such an illness.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed portions of this nomination that made it look like we were somehow nominating " PageName ".  No opinion at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Important technical term.  - Altenmann >talk 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the term hasn't lost its notability since the previous, unanimous Keep , AfD.  Owen× ☎ 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article just needs expanding.  It looks like it especially needs work from someone with expertise in health insurance.  Deleting it would quite counterproductive.  Vontheri ( talk ) 10:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : nominated again?  a notable topic requiring some expansion...  Password (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This topic would be hard to find and probably WP:UNDUE in Disease , since it isn't relevant for disease itself so much as insurance and social services purposes.  "Not a formal medical term" isn't a reason for deletion, but also, the NIH defines it: [5] .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:42, 23 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
Khursheed Jabeen : only sources are Databases.  -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Pakistan .  -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep It's highly likely that sourcing offline exists for an international player of this period, or in non-English language sources that are not accessible.  A suitable redirect per WP:ATD in List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers exists also.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the problem is that inaccessible sources are not verifiable.  -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've added one (non-database) source.  Given the amount of international cricket she played over a long-ish career, I'm sure other sources exist as Rugbyfan points out.  Mpk662 ( talk ) 15:38, 12 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
Yokota, Shimane : The history of Yokota and Nita, Shimane can be added to the "history" section.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under WP:NPLACE , which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" and continues to note that " notability encompasses their entire history " whether or not they still exist.  This was a separate populated, legally recognized place with its own local government, etc. for all but one year between 1889 and 2005.  Further, WP:BEFORE asks us to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet", which is the case here.  I doubt any search in Japanese has been carried out—try "島根県横田町" for these.  I see quite a lot of hits on Google and Google Books, some of which are academic.  Dekimasu よ!  02:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - see: ja:Yokota town -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per Dekimasu's clear explanation of the rules for formerly legally recognized places. ::-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Korean article suggests it was formerly a legally recognized place.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep According to the Korean article, there is evidence to suggest that it was previously recognized as a legally established place.  As per WP:NPLACE , which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable".  Saurabh Saha 08:36, 2 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
Héctor Larrea : Avishai11 ( talk ) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:ARTIST .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Radio , Television ,  and Argentina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has enough sources to pass WP:GNG ; did you perform WP:BEFORE on native Spanish language refs?  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - satisfies WP:ARTIST .  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 11:08, 30 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
Le Club des 100 Watts : I am not convinced there is a good WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes notability, with various Quebec sources [11] , [12] , [13] .  It generated a travelling show featuring the performers, which is what those articles are about.  Book mentions here [14] about how the sketches came to be on the TV show.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This talks about it as well [15] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Oaktree has found several good sources and I believe this meets the GNG.  Toadspike [Talk] 09:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Justyn Vicky : However, he is otherwise not notable and fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC.  Adding WP:1E.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bodybuilding and Indonesia .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve.  Justyn Vicky's death has received coverage from reliable sources: Times of India Fox News .  I am surprised that the article doesn't cite these... -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 06:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its just the source was too much, I fried up my brain last night because of this -_- Asphonixm ( talk ) 07:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times of India piece was authored by a third party (per the disclaimer down at the bottom).  Fox News has been caught lying to get views, I'd be wary of using them as a source.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The use of Fox News should be fine here, since there's multiple other sources that confirm the same info.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources.  NYC Guru ( talk ) 08:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources are presented.  Sometimes notability only surfaces after a sad event like this, the claim to notability is not only the circumstances of death.  I would respect WP:RAPID (while also respecting WP:BLP in the content for the recently deceased) and not delete this right now.   — siro χ o 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like his death has received international coverage, which seems to be enough - I'd still like to see other coverage per WP:NOTMEMORIAL , it's possible it's already in the article.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is from CNN Indonesia, in Indonesian.  [37] .  Coverage in English media seems to be PR-ish.  I'd argue the CNN coverage is purely local/in the native language, not helping notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources from article, Fox news article, and this article from People: [38] .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 00:02, 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
Newell's car-following model : Traffic flow theory could be a suitable WP:ATD but I felt it would unbalance that article.  Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , so far as I can see, this model has been used extensively in literature, for example in a Springer book chapter, [37] , an assessment in a research paper, [38] , and in research on cruise control strategies.  [39] A concept that an encyclopaedia reader has every right to read about.  Elemimele ( talk ) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:02, 18 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!  04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- dozens of high quality sources in a scholar source.  Failure of WP: BEFORE > Central and Adams ( talk ) 05:35, 25 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
Nigar Shaji : Fails the Anybio criteria Moem-Meom ( talk ) 11:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Engineering , Spaceflight ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Shaji is the project lead for India's Aditya-L1 mission which is examining the sun.  She has received coverage in multiple papers and meets WP:BASIC .  I have removed some duplicate citations, and from what remains the best coverage of her is from these three citations: [1] [2] [3] DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 18:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] great edits!  Moem-Meom ( talk ) 20:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "She's shining bright".  The Hindu; Chennai .  27 October 2023 – via Proquest .  ^ Sivapriyan, ETB (2 September 2023).  "Meet Nigar Shaji, Aditya L1 project director from Tamil Nadu" .  Deccan Herald .  Retrieved 4 September 2023 .  ^ Kumar, Chethan (5 May 2022).  "Aim is to find unique outcome from Venus mission".  The Times of India; New Delhi – via Proquest .  Keep Clearly meets our general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources .  Recent additions by DaffodilOcean have only further demonstrated this.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 10:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  She has received quite a large coverage in a number of reliable mainstream newspapers in India and also part of many news/feature on TV channels.  She definitely passes the notability criteria.  thanks Davidindia ( talk ) 10:21, 5 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
Last Will (film) : I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .   Per NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable," and I don't think Horrorphilia is suitable enough.   And even if it was, it's only ONE source (needs TWO OR MORE sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES).  The Film Creator ( talk ) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , review at Cinemagazine [18] Donald D23 talk to me 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And another , in Dutch.  Production has received some coverage, here at least.  So a reasonably decent page is possible on this film, which seems notable enough (Meaning Keep ). - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 00:09, 14 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!  23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The reviews cited above appear to be sufficient to support an article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We have three editors ! voting keep and no other ! votes other than the implied delete by the nom...  I'd like some more input otherwise it'll be no consensus .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry but why do you say that?  There is a strong consensus that films with 2 reviews are generally accepted as notable.  Accordingly the nominator was asking for 1 more review at least, when 2 were presented.  So saying that without more input it would close as "no consensus" does not seem correct.  The nominator's rationale might (and I don't think it would) justify a "no consensus" outcome if and only if no reviews had been presented.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 05:03, 30 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
1993 Space Machine : Metacritic turns up no critic reviews, and searches per WP:BEFORE don't turn up much.  It's an interesting subject, but it does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines .  λ Negative MP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  λ Negative MP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Found 3 instances of SIGCOV, in PC Zone , Polygon and Nintendo Life .  What might trip people up is that the game was initially called 1993 Shenandoah before being renamed 1993 Space Machine.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per zxcvbnm's sources Queen of ♡ | speak 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has sufficient sig coverage.  X ( talk ) 18:57, 19 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