hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ryan Tudhope: Subject has to have won or have had multiple nominations.  A BEFORE search showed ROUTINE coverage in Hollywood media like Variety and THR but it was either an interview (not independent) or it only mentioned subject in passing.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : According to Variety, Tudhope was also nominated for an Emmy in 2014.  That may satisfy WP:ANYBIO .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  2 nominations ( ONE , TWO ) for 2 significant awards.  The veracity of the nominations, the importance of the awards and the fact that 2>1 being unquestionable , he does appear to meet ANYBIO indeed.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ANYBIO: "has been nominated for such an award several times" (emphasis mine).  "Several" is more than two; some people would say that several intones more than a couple (2-3) and more than a few (4-5).  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, yes.  That's true, I had "multiple" in mind (and even then).  Removing my ! vote.  Although I think that could be almost enough, the guideline states it otherwise.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -->and back to Keep but for slightly different reasons: I found MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation convincing (Thanks) and I therefore think an article about him is not undue and can be well-sourced with what exists. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee.  There is also significant sources on him source 1 , source 2 , source 3 .  MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk ) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep To be honest, the article is so sparse, it invites a redirect.  But since he's been verified as winning an award for two different films, there's no obvious target to redirect to.  Hence, the default is to keep as a separate entry.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 6 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
2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush: Ecrusized ( talk ) 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Terrorism ,  and Syria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, I made it because it was the deadliest attack on Syrian soldiers by ISIS forces in the new insurgency which has been going on for a few years now.  The attack remains the deadliest attack on soldiers by ISIS in the desert insurgency, it is definitely notable, also just because it occurred in the low-intensity period of the Syrian war doesn't make it not notable. -- Garmin21 ( talk ) 13:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes GNG, sources in article are from Reuters, Guardian, plus a search found [6] , [7] .  // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 6 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
Martin Fürer: Looked up "Martin Furer" and "Martin Furer + computer scientist" and found 2 or 3 sources stating that "a pair of Australian mathematicians...", otherwise he's just an educator.  I considered moving to draftspace, however I think it's futile if there are no reliable sources to help improve the page.  shelovesneo ( talk ) 04:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Would the nominator care to comment if the subject's citation record on Scholar has relevance to WP:Prof#C1 .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep , enough highly cited publications [44] to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  The integer multiplication algorithm is the splashiest (e.g. reported in major mainstream media [45] ) but far from the only significant contribution.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 13:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  This is a new article and appears to be in good faith, let's give it a chance to breathe before deleting.  Professors have several paths to notability.  If not draftify, I lean weak keep because we have some signal pointing toward WP:ACADEMIC -- decent citation counts per Google Scholar [46] , especially on [47] and [48] . — siro χ o 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] weak Keep , decent GS profile for his field, with 7 publication that have 100+ citations this should be good enough to pass WP:PROF #1 even though its a close call. -- hroest 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think WP:PROF#C1 is met.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:11, 28 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
Below Zero (1930 film): I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG .  The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Covered in many books, including [4] , [5] , and [6] Donald D23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Donald23's sources.  I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also.  Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards.  Lubal ( talk ) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage mentioned by Donaldd23 + some I added to the page (see for yourself) + more existing....  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 25 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
Creth Hines: No sources cited in the article that aren't wide-sweeping databases with low inclusion criteria.  In my WP:BEFORE I did a google search that turned up statistical databases.  I then searched Newspapers.com, which turned up a dozen or so one-sentence mentions [ can be seen here ].  None of these is significant coverage of Creth Hines under WP:SIGCOV .  Instead every one of them is a brief mention that covers the same fact: that Creth Hines was a javelin thrower at Georgetown.  FOARP ( talk ) 11:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics .  FOARP ( talk ) 11:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Kind of surprised I wasn't able to find more for this U.S. national champion.  But I do think we have enough, although its close, for a pass of notability.  The Houston Public Library gives 108 words ( WP:100WORDS ) on Hines, including stating that he was discussed in the book Ku Klux Kulture: America and the Klan in the 1920s for starting up the first Ku Klux Klan baseball team of its kind.  Newspapers.com has some coverage, e.g. an AP story ("Creth Hines Hoping To Set New Record"), a NY Daily News article ("Creth Hines, Georgetown, Eyes Olympic Team"), and a Washington Evening Star article from decades after his career; then there's also shorter pieces that could be considered on the edge of sigcov, e.g. here , here , here and here .  Added up, I think its sufficient to pass WP:GNG .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11 .  Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 05:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that the sources from BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this person has been significantly covered by multiple independent RS, so this article should be kept (and improved).  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 23 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
Vishen Lakhiani: Please review whether the reasons of the previous nomination still apply.  Janhrach ( talk ) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Literature ,  and Malaysia .  Janhrach ( talk ) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Weak Keep Article is "oh look this man has created a company" type.  References are extremely poor.  Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO .  scope_creep Talk 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He may get a pass via WP:NAUTHOR .  Worth a look.  If so I'll change my ! vote.  scope_creep Talk There is reviews on the boooks.  I think he probably passes WP:NAUTHOR .  I think he is probably not notable at the moment.  The coverage is quite poor.  scope_creep Talk 12:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep South China Morning Post and BBC seem to be about him, should have enough to keep it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I concur with Oaktree b .  Additionally, NYT bestseller helps, Mindvalley is quite well known.  TLA (talk) 03:28, 14 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
Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813): Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hasan Abdal article.  (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.)  No opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Afghanistan ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources are reliable and from historians.  The article can be expanded on from existing sources.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source.  Contemporary sources do not matter, see WP:RS , and WP:HISTRS .  Noorullah ( talk ) 02:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like more review of sources and whether or not this small "battle" was, in fact, notable.  Nominator, who didn't sign their statement, was User:Festivalfalcon873 Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the above comments.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:18, 17 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
Gustaf Wachtmeister: Fails the general notability policy, as well as the biography-specific one.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military ,  and Sweden .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of available sources, like Swedish encyclopedias.  See Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok , Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon or his entry in Nordisk familjebok .  Swedish Wikipedia also refers to Ätten Wachtmeister genom seklerna by sv:Sven Grauers , which I don't have access to right now.  Easily notable just looking at what's been digitalized, however.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Entries in various Nordic encyclopedias clearly establish notability.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG per above.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I quick check turns up possible sources per WP:NEXIST .  I sure hope someone adds a few to the article.  Lightburst ( talk ) 21:01, 11 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
Firefox 2 : would like to also suggest that the following be deleted as well Firefox 3.0 Firefox 3.5 Firefox 3.6 Firefox 4 1keyhole ( talk ) 02:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Clearly verifiable and notable.  Delete this article will definitely hurt Wikipedia.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 03:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose: Nothing inherently wrong with any of these articles, what are you getting at exactly?  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 21:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The articles included are closer in scope to Windows 98 than a hypothetical article on Firefox 98 (since the versions of Firefox in question are before Firefox changed their release model and those releases were major releases.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  To delete this article and the ones similar to it would be akin to deleting articles like Mac OS X 10.0 , Windows 98 , Android Eclair and numerous other articles like them.  They're major releases of software and are of relative importance; as The person who loves reading stated, this will most certainly harm Wikipedia.  Dawnbails ( talk ) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all of them for now .  We need to see what's going to happen with Firefox version history and Firefox early version history first.  There may be a case eventually for merging these into the latter, but the general trend around Firefox version articles for the last decade has been to split them up given how long the pages were getting — so unless those version history pages are extensively cleaned up a merge is probably unwise.  For the time being, these are short but well-written & well-sourced articles about browser versions that were very popular at the time of their release, and so are important to people wanting to understand the development of the web.  They belong on Wikipedia.  – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me!  15:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable software.  Klausness ( talk ) 12:40, 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
Nasib : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'll try and improve the page so that it is easier to see that it meets WP:NFILM .  Thanks. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (NB- In general, for released films with multiple sources, a redirect should be/is considered (to either director/list of film of the year by country).  [ reply ] Comment : There is this in UtusanTV.  There appears be SIGCOV in 120 Malay Movies .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Besides the above there is also this , this , this , this and this , which should be enough for GNG.  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided above.  Does seem to meet WP:GNG .  S5A-0043 Talk 12:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per identified sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:40, 2 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
Battle of the Tendra Spit : It's definitively interesting.  However it's just one of the many Ukrainian landing incursions that have happened in the occupied southern territories.  So far these have been covered at Dnieper campaign (2022–present) .  As you can see by looking at the article there have been many such operations, with some being of a longer and larger extent than this one, and yet they don't have their own article.  I think this should be merged there.  We can't give an article to every single individual operation of this war.  Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia ,  and Ukraine .  Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST : The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.  Just because there have been many such operations and most do not have their own articles, some of which may be more deserving of one, does not mean that there is anything wrong with an editor singling one out and expanding it into an article.  ( WP:SUMMARYSTYLE )  The separate article provides information for the reader at a level of detail not available in the main article, and merging it into the main article would be WP:UNDUE .  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the battle was a separate landing from the Deniper campaign.  Also the tendra split is located in the Black Sea.  Not the Deniper river Salfanto ( talk ) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I spelt Dnieper wrong.  My bad Salfanto ( talk ) 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move I agree with those above who say that this cannot be adequately covered in any other article.  But the current title, "Battle of the Tendra Spit," does not seem to be sourced.  While many sources refer to the event taking place as a battle (such as this one ), it doesn't seem like any of them are refering to it as "the Battle of the Tendra Spit."  Gödel2200 ( talk ) 13:10, 25 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