hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Paul Ford (technologist): Additionally, I'm having a bit of trouble finding 3P sources about this individual, seems non-notable.  Sohom ( talk ) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lots of articles published in Wired written by the individual, but nothing about this person found otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've expanded the article with some additional details and various new references (mostly 3P).  Ford is notable in his field (tech/design, and technology journalism).  I do not know him, but I know his work.  Keep .  Agree with above commenter - subject is notable in his field.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : (as nominator) Per previous commenters, article has been sufficiently expanded and notability has been sufficiently proven.  Sohom ( talk ) 14:27, 7 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
The Heroes of Desert Storm: If not TNT'd, it may be a candidate for merging into an article about Desert Storm or films related to same.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Military ,  and Middle East .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added sources that attest notabilty. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue those fall under trivial/passing mentions and do not constitute SIGCOV.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A whole review in Variety , almost a paragraph in Devine’s book.... hard not to call this significant coverage...and none of the books mentioning the film briefly makes trivial nor passing mention only, no, sorry, that’s simply not true.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update : added review in LAT and other sources including NYT, which does seem to seal the deal. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of significant coverage such as reviews in Variety, and LA Times as well as reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:55, 3 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
Britain's Got Talent (series 16): It may also be too soon with no results or very few results to report.   There is also a draft, Draft: Britain's Got Talent (series 16) , by a different editor, which was briefly in article space and was then (correctly) moved into draft space.   Either references and substantive content should be added to this article within seven days for a Heymann result, or it should be merged with the existing draft and the merged draft left in draft space until there are substantive results with reliable sources .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources need to be added as far as judging changes, but it has started airing; it's not getting deleted at this point.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Obviously.  One of the biggest shows in the UK.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is silly to delete this article when it would just need to be created again within weeks, as every season of the show gets sufficient coverage to cross the threshold of notability.  Beyond that, there are already nearly a dozen sources in the article, some high-level, providing reasonable coverage of the subject.  BD2412 T 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the show and this season pass WP:GNG .  The draft issue is another thing, but the article as it is now has several sources now, and yes definitely could still be improved, but I don't feel deletion or drafty is the best course forward with the season already started.  WikiVirus C (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep every season has one lmao Muur ( talk ) 02:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article could still be improved, but seems fine for now.  Absolutely no point in deleting.  CycloneYoris talk!  10:55, 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
Whirled: Fails the general notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST .  The game got SIGCOV from Kotaku , Engadget , IGN and VentureBeat .  It got primary interview from GamesRadar and Engadget .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The refs presented above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ suggest the topic meets WP:NVIDEOGAMES , even if the current article fails to ascertain it.  Owen× ☎ 15:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   the sources presented by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG .  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:43, 24 November 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
Alb Thomas: stub on an unnotable sportsperson.  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia .  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep on a first pass this extensive contemporary analysis by Andrew Gigacz would differentiate Thomas from the morass of obscure VFL footballers.  – Tera tix ₵ 10:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With such a common last name that's also a first name, he's a bit of a nightmare to research on Trove.  – Tera tix ₵ 10:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aside from the coverage already mentioned in Gigacz's analysis ( [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ), I've tracked down a picture and discovered he was named as an emergency in a combined Junior Association team .  – Tera tix ₵ 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Good sources found by Teratix, that's enough for me to show he has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 November 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
Nasra Ali Abukar: Per WP:BLP1E , I don't think we can justify an article for her as she is only known for this one race and is otherwise a low-profile individual.  The incident was widely reported in early August 2023, but none of the coverage was sustained.  She doesn't seem to be known for anything else.  A PROD was declined.  Suggest redirecting to 2021 Summer World University Games where there is a section dedicated to the controversy.  gobonobo + c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women .  gobonobo + c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there is notability, but about the controversy itself, not about the runner.  I'd perhaps write a new article about the controversy, or merge a small portion of it into a subsection in the event's article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I second this.  ~ Ivan Scrooge 98 ( talk ) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What would you think about simply re-naming this article?  The information is already there.  Joyous!  Noise!  01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Ali Abukar gained attention through a hotline from August 2023 to September.  Her involvement in corruption incidents led to turmoil within the Somali government , ultimately prompting the Somali Parliament to summon the Sports Minister to appear before the House of Representatives.  QalasQalas ( talk ) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Eventify .  I agree with Oaktree b and the succeeding commenters.  Keep it but as an event instead of a biography.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:59, 5 February 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 ) 04:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Keep but rename" is my ! vote, if that helps.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but as event.  Orientls ( talk ) 05:55, 12 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
Witch Yoo Hee: Tagged for notability since 2012.  I looked at the 7 other languages pages, and they either had no citations or the citations were not usable toward notability requirements (primary/database/etc).  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:42, 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!  07:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article already has references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Broadcast on a major national network; international distribution; rather notable ratings; some sources; rather notable cast.  All in all, Keep .  The article could do with some trimming and additional sources.  (NB- I deproDed the page with the comment Take to Afd or Improve, some time ago).  Worst case scenario, redirect to the List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System , but the problem, I found, with this kind of redirects is that many of those lists of programs by network have been recently challenged/over-tagged and end up deleted and so do those redirects.... , so I favour a plain Keep).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 31 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
List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports: Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS , most of these are WP:PRIMARY .  Of the three remaining sources two of them is dead and one is nothing but listings and announcments, doing nothing to establish notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television ,  and Basketball .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : These crews get covered as a group in secondary sources such as [ [8] ], [ [9] ], [ [10] ] [ [11] ] and [ [12] ] (not to mention that these sources were just on the first page of results of a quick internet search).  I'd say it passes the WP:LISTN criteria and I'm not sure what part of WP:NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates (or WP:NOTTVGUIDE , since this isn't covering a broadcast schedule).  The current sources are mostly primary, but that is not a reason to delete any article on its own when secondary sources are shown to exist.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by Let'srun .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I figured when we get up to the most notable sporting events in the US that we would get more WP:SIGCOV .  The article does need to be trimmed, but the sources provided by Let'srun suffice for WP:LISTN .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:06, 12 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
CRRC Massachusetts: It should probably be redirected to CRRC , at least for now.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , China ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How do you figure?  Then majority of online articles relating to CRRC factories around the world, would need to be deleted.  Yeahimaboss413 ( talk ) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think it's fine.  Has decent sourcing and providing railcars for SEPTA, MBTA, and the LA Metro is notable enough as those are some of the biggest public transit networks in the US.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep definitely notable in context of regional infrastructure and economy.  This is not corporate self promotion, it’s valuable information.  Sourcing needs work.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It has gotten plenty of notability.  I worked on this as a draft for a while.  And there will be some more coming when the HR4000s enter service.  QuarioQuario54321 ( talk ) 05:53, 3 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
Alyssa Lang: GraziePrego ( talk ) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Sports ,  and North Carolina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Our page might not be citing enough independent in-depth secondary source material to establish notability, but I'm a bit skeptical that such material doesn't exist, given how much professional TV airtime the subject has.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:56, 8 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!  08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep a bit of decent coverage in local media [6] , [7] , [8] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Aquatic Ambiance ( talk ) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has been mostly rewritten using sourcing from The State , Saturday Down South , The Clarion-Ledger , and AL.com (including those mentioned by Oaktree b ).  Best, Bridget (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the significant media coverage available on her career that is now cited in the article.  Bridget (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  Bridget (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Easily has three sources that pass WP:BASIC .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the expansion since nomination shows the article passes WP:BASIC .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:26, 26 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
List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters: Many Star Trek shows have lists of characters (on top of List of Star Trek characters , as well as the longer alphabetical List of Star Trek characters (A–F) ).  Only two ST shows have 'recurring' lists - DS9 (here) and List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise .  I am unsure whether we want to rename this by removing 'recurring', or just redirect it to the List of ST characters?  I'll note that many entries in Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters are unconsistently redirected either here or the alphabetical "all-ST" lists.  Some cleanup is clearly needed here, and I think we can first discuss what to do with those two oddball "recurring" lists?  My preferred suggestion would be to keep them, and rename them by removing recurring, but I am open to other ideas?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think both could be BOLDly renamed, perhaps adding either a series of {{main article}} tags or more likely a single {{main list}} tag under a section header, to point at the main characters or the cast lists which point at them.  — siro χ o 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 19 characters have their own articles.   If you want to prune the list of others, that can be done through normal editing practices.  It shuold be renamed to line up with other articles of this type.  D r e a m Focus 12:33, 16 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!  06:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess I will ! vote keep for the AfD discussion, renaming is fine.  — siro χ o 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters and add the regular cast.  "Recurring" really makes no sense for anything other than a soap opera.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters --to which the regular characters are added--would indeed be the best solution.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters and add the standard cast, per others.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename and rescope as the consensus WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:57, 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