hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
K Muralikrishna: Of all sources cited, the subject received single passing mention in 3 of the sources, 2 passing mention in one while the others do mention them at all CrucialEditor ( talk ) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CrucialEditor ( talk ) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Easy choice, there are no sources discussing this person.  Passing mentions aren't enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as director of various rather notable films (3 at least of his films being considered notable, as having  a WP page and having received some coverage). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 13 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!  06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He meets the WP:DIRECTOR criteria with his direction in multiple notable films.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE .  What we contributors need to understand and accept is that notability is not inherited .  Almost all sourcing one can dig up is about the films; not the director himself.  It;s indicative of desperation when some of the sources already cited, such as this or this , do not even mention Muralikrishna!  A new, young director trying the fast lane .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided.  A source analysis would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:10, 26 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: no consensus
Davide Fragnito: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV other than this , which seems like a press release ("The whole company expresses the utmost satisfaction").  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Italy .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's a reasonable source here and a few bits here .  Worth a weak keep in my opinion.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 May 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!  22:41, 26 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: no consensus
KZTC-LD: Article was kept in a 2011 AfD but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : It at least looks like there were some attempts at some semblance of local programming in the "Bay 63" K63EN days, but unless significant coverage in reliable sources to verify any of this surfaces, it won't count for much here.  (But it's enough to add that "weak" qualifier; that still distinguishes this from the numerous LPTVs that never attempted any non-national programming.)  The first nomination was definitely a conflict between enforcing what would now be seen as the "proper" GNG and the overpresumption of notability seen in pre-2021 versions of NMEDIA / BROADCAST ; under the looser "standards" of that era, that generally didn't lead to many deletions, but Wikipedia and its inclusion standards have evolved since then.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is indeed an article: "After 12 years in works, Channel 63 hits air tonight", San Diego Union-Tribune 10/16/92, and there is a longer article in 1993 from the Los Angeles Times that mostly covers the station's attempts to spotlight gay sex in Balboa Park.  (I kid you not.)  The trail does dry up hard after the 90s, but...  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:56, 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: no consensus
Fabiana López: Didn't win a medal.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Olympics ,  and Mexico .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like she might be discussed here .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:29, 19 August 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!  21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment she is silver medalist at the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games (foil team) and also medalist at the 1987 Pan American Games.  As she was internationally active in the 1980s, sources should be searched at off-line Spanish-language sources.  All-in-all, together with the source provided by BeanieFan11 I would say a weak keep .  109.37.152.36 ( talk ) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 00:57, 3 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: no consensus
Razib Khan: Most of the notable sources describe the event with the New York Times, but that single event is not notable.  Most of the individual's notability comes from his own publications, but Wikipedia requires notable secondary sources.  Waters.Justin ( talk ) 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Biology , Bangladesh ,  and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep There appear to be several secondary sources (books and articles) already cited in the story.  Entirely separate from coverage the New York Times incident, notable RS already cited include Regalado (MIT Technology Review), Gonyea (NPR), Walker, Cussins, Rieland, and Newton.  There's also Dunbar-Ortiz , page 43, which could be added.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As Mr. Razib Khan is a global researcher, published too many research papers and coauthor of several books, owned a identity in google scholar or like other renowned research publisher (Find several secondary sources: Google (books · news · scholar etc) and also got remarkable citation against his publication.  For this why his biographical story can be include for getting information by others through a common platform like wikipedia.  As per WP:ACADEMIC WP:SCHOLAR Article may need to remove from deletion list to keep this in wikipedia.  Thanks - Md.  Giashuddin Chowdhury ( talk ) 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 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!  18:52, 29 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: no consensus
Bhola Maheswar: Non notable television series aired by a now defunct channel.  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:05, 2 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!  02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:25, 23 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: no consensus
Shoreditch TV: It is not clear that the BBC reference cited in the article even relates to this station.  Previously PRODded.  Stifle ( talk ) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Stifle ( talk ) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apparently created this article however I have no knowledge of doing so!  Then again it was 17 years ago.  If you search for '"shoreditch tv" cctv' you do see some relevant articles from other outlets so apparently I didn't fabricate the entire thing.  Dan Huby ( talk ) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the avoidance of doubt I am certainly not accusing you of fabricating anything, merely stating that the TV station described does not appear to meet our notability requirements to have an article.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Devora Radeva: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Bulgaria .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Nominator nominated 49 of these in 30 minutes.  No discussion has followed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 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!  03:39, 24 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: no consensus
Sonic user interface: It doesn't seem to be notable as opposed to individual topics that would fall under this definition such as Screen reader and Virtual assistant .  ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Computing .  ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  The term also describes the "voicemail hell" offered by many call centres as a way of serving customers without getting a human involved.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is not whether a few sources which mention the term exist, but whether they are substantial enough to comprise significant coverage and support the content.  Although the sources mention SUI they don't go into detail about the concept itself and none back up the definition given in the article.  Two of them only include the term once.  ― novov (t c) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is there any distinction between sonic user interfaces and voice user interfaces ?  Might be worth making this page a redirect to voice user interface if there isn't.  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to voice user interface .  That is a much more commonly used term.  It is unclear what the difference between a "sonic user interface" and "voice user interface" actually is, and we don't have sufficient reliable sources to justify drawing such a distinction.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 19 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: no consensus
Unity Christian Music Festival: Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Religion .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's several more mlive links and at least two more presumably RS listed in the 'news' tab of find sources, above.  Not what I expected to find, but it appears to be an ongoing thing with regional coverage.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The other sources under news don't really seem fully reliable to me.  If MLive is the only RS (which it might not be), I would argue an issue of WP:GEOSCOPE .  According to Google Trends, the only people who look it up are from Michigan, and specifically Muskegon and Norton Shores.  It doesn't seem notable at all outside of these two small cities.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain the disconnect between this and your nomination statement, Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant "other sources," obviously excluding anything already in the article.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 06:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Christianity ,  and Michigan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as MLive Media Group seems to be a reliable  source as they publish articles from their physical newspapers and Grand Rapids Magazine is also most likely a reliable source, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:39, 1 April 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!  06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk ) 15:17, 13 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: no consensus
Marta Paoletti: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Italy .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 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!  02:38, 24 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: no consensus
English for Integrated Studies: It was deleted in 2009 after an AfD, and has bee in CAT:NN for 14 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Huh.  I was going to ask about the previous AfD, but apparently that was raised by me, back in 2009.  Anyway, in the 15 years since, it appears to have been subject of a huge amount of academic papers (check the Google Scholar results), so things have certainly changed.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I can't read the article or sources closely enough right now to be sure, but this really does look like a notable topic based on my search results - lots and lots of them.  But anyone making a keep argument should be careful to check that sources aren't pay-to-publish journals.  I noticed Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences in the list.  Pretty sure that's a plausible-sounding but fake/predatory journal.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University , a university publication. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 14:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion on extant sourcing regarding this article's subject would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 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: no consensus
Elastic scoring : A redirect to Arrangement might be appropriate.  Noahfgodard ( talk ) 01:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:14, 24 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: no consensus