hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Julian Trevelyan (pianist) : I have done a Google search to see if this subject has received sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources , but all I could find were a few articles from small, local outlets.  Six citations in this article are from the subject's website ; one is from Amazon .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Excluding the references from his own website, I think the rest of them add up to notability.  Local is okay for musicians.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of the two citations from local news sources, the subject is only the main focus in one.  The other is a passing mention in an article about home schooling.  Combined they do not establish notability according to WP:NSUSTAINED .  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 17:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  マリオマリオ ( talk ) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject has won several awards and meets WP:MUSICBIO .  Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : His awards seem to satisfy #9 at WP:MUSICBIO .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:59, 2 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
The World in Your Home : Boleyn ( talk ) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America , New York ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added some content and some citations to the article.  I hope that those will help.  Eddie Blick ( talk ) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on newly added sources.  Donald D23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 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 ) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per HEY .  Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 02:54, 2 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
Brave Family : Tagged for notability since 2015 Donald D23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games , Korea ,  and South Korea .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify .  Need multiple sources for notability.  Flurrious ( talk ) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : I think due to generic name of show, there seem low coverage in English.  In native language, shows seems notable. -- AAonlyA ( talk ) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be happy to vote keep, but please tell us more. What sources in Korean suggest notability? Ko wiki article  at ko:용감한 가족 is no better than what we have. The only source there is the link to a minor news outlet ( ko:OSEN , no en wiki article) about actor joining the show [11] . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per my comment above. Weak b/c I did not do a BEFORE (if sources exist they exist in Korean). We need a Korean BEFORE before we can really make a decision here, sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:04, 2 November 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!  22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One source in Korean (see WP page in Korean for link) at Osen ( reliable ) describing the program and some participants a little bit more extensively than the one source on the page.  At the very least redirect to List of programmes broadcast by the Korean Broadcasting System (where it is not yet mentioned).  See also: Other source in English and various sources in Korean on the Spanish Wikipedia article, fwiw. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incorporating sources from the Spanish Wikipedia article ought to be enough for notability.  Flurrious ( talk ) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Flurrious , are you still arguing for draftification then?  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added the citations to the English page.  Flurrious ( talk ) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article appears to meet WP:GNG with the additional sources.  Tollens ( talk ) 00:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per consensus.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:03, 20 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
Pearl Berg : Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Indiana .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell ( talk • contribs ) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC) -- Signing because I forget to do that a lot. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, Interstellarity , this nomination (like that for Elizabeth Francis ) has been made without any reference to the relevant notability criteria. Were this Guinness World Records , "simply being the nth oldest person alive" might be insufficient to be listed. It's not. Here, the question is whether sources exist. They do. Examples: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . -- Usernameunique ( talk ) 21:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Will respond on other page.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 22:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets notability guidelines, as discussed above.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Even less notable than Elizabeth Francis.  I seem to detect a note of America-centrism here: why not nos. 7 and 8?  Do they not count because they aren't American?  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction .  I see that No. 7 does have an article, so it's just No. 8, Okagi Hayashi, that is missing.  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually attempted to create articles for Hayashi as well, but unlike Francis and Berg, Hayashi does not seem to possess in-depth coverage beyond the organizaztions that certified her, as well as unreliable listicle articles that data dump stats from Wikipedia.  EytanMelech ( talk ) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources .  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 17:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Nominator appears to have withdrawn looking at their comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Francis I was otherwise going to say redirect and create a mini biography for now, I'm still skeptical on the sourcing and length but time should fix that.  N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:38, 1 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
Hatirjheel Thana : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   This defined as the area within the jurisdiction of a particular police station, within the city of Dhaka.  Not a "place" in a normal or SNG sense of the term.  These type of districts are specifically excluded under NGEO.  North8000 ( talk ) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Geography ,  and Bangladesh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , thanas of Bangladesh are indeed notable because in Bangladesh we also regard them as place (be officially or unofficially).  Thana is also administrative subdivision in Bangladesh, and in census report you can find thana based population data ( Census tract , for example see Uttar Khan Thana ).  It proves that we refer thanas as "place" in general sense and it is indeed a legally recognized place .  Also I found many sources about it, so it is only matter of verifying these sources you can find in google to see if they really are reliable or not.  Mehedi Abedin 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is no logical reason for Hatirjheel Thana, an administrative division of DNCC , to be deleted.  A thana means an area which is controlled by a police station.  Hatirjheel Thana being removed means that Motijheel Thana , Gulshan Thana , Dhanmondi Thana , Shahbagh Thana and Tejgaon Thana and all the others also has to be removed.  Uss157 ( talk ) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The SNG specifically excludes the more abstract "set of lines on a map" : " Census tracts, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.")   For example, I live in a town that  truly acknowledged to be presumed notable.    I also live in many other legally defined districts.... legally defined sets of lines on a map which are different than those of the town.    A school district, a junior college district, a fire protection district, a mosquito control district, a precinct, a census tract, a water authority district, a park district.    All of the rest of those are not presumed notable.  If you asked me where I lived, the answer would never be telling you one of the latter.   Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 12:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep shazid ( আলাপ ) 06:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Ishtiak Abdullah ( talk ) Keep per the above comments, see WP:NGEO .  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:26, 7 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
Language Rights Support Program : Tagged for notability issues since 2010.  Fails WP:NORG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Law ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seem to be quite a few discussions of the program in Canadian government materials (e.g. [27] , [28] , both PDF).  While I don't know whether these can be considered independent of the program, given its government funding, there are also scholarly papers (e.g. [29] , [30] ) at least from 2006 to 2017.  Cnilep ( talk ) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable government-financed program with good references already present in the article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NORG is met by sources found by Cnilep — siro χ o 21:33, 10 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
John De'Mathew : Dying in a traffic accident isn't notable, rest of their career appears non-notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Kenya’s vice president William Ruto paid tribute to him ( CNN ) and he is called "the celebrated king of benga" by The Standard , one of Kenya's largest newspapers (see here ).  This article by The Standard notes a few "bestselling hits".  Mentioned here as a successful Gĩkũyũ musician, and as an "genius" who could sway public opinion in this book .  While it is unfortunate that most of the coverage lacks depth and mainly consists of articles written after his  death, I don't believe that this should undermine his notability.  Mooonswimmer 01:42, 8 May 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!  23:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral there are sources but they are not in depth Adler3 ( talk ) 00:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are references to make him notable.  FXBeats21 ( talk ) 07:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I think WP:GNG is passed by these sources [47] [48] [49] [50] .  I've ! voted weak keep because a lot of the coverage of him online is about his death, however I think the sources linked gives more information about his life.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was offline sources, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a bad argument to make.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough national coverage to meet WPSINGER.  116.92.232.6 ( talk ) 02:30, 29 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
PEP (People, Events and Places) Talk : Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multi-awarded show and a precursor to most Philippine feature programs.  Please do some WP:BEFORE next time.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced that either of the awards the show won are major. They all seem minor and not notable. Just because a show won an "award" doesn't make it notable...unless the award is a major, recgonized award. Also, being a precursor to other shows is not a gauge of notability, unless citations can be provided saying as much. Otherwise it is just conjecture. My BEFORE, which I did, brought up nothing to support notability, and I am not sure your rationale is enough either. Donald D23 talk to me 11:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow PMPC STAR awards minor and not notable. Nah, we're done talking here. I'm not dealing with this. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep and ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination .  Um yeah, Catholic Mass Media Awards and PMPC Star Awards for Television are major; in fact the latter seems to be the only award giving body for solely devoted to television.  This screams like "ignorant foreigner!" to me.  There's still time to withdraw this nomination and stop wasting our time.  Howard the Duck ( talk ) 16:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: with reminder to avoid personal attacks against the nom, thank you.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 20:37, 12 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
Gayle Anderson : One of the two references is connected to the subject, another is a trivia source.  Career section is also under-referenced and thus does not comply with WP:BLP .  A09 ( talk ) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women .  A09 ( talk ) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The whole article is supported with two sources only which, I agree, would be scarce even for a general article but the requirements for WP:BLP are even stricter and prescribe sufficient media coverage and secondary sources to prove their notability. -- Rodgers V ( talk ) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Rodgers V : What do you think about #1 of WP:ANYBIO as subject got 3 Emmys.  A09 ( talk ) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for researchers, especially on the Miami side: she was known as Gail, not Gayle, in Miami.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , barely, but the unsourced material needs to be removed.  I think the content here Gayle Anderson#Awards and recognition passes the line.  // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but recommending that editors consider a WP:TNT .  I personally think the article has potential given the awards nomination.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep only because she has won Emmys, but the article is in dire need of work.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per editors above and per WP:ANYBIO with her Emmy awards.  Shout out to Timothy for TNTing the unreferenced material here.  Nomader ( talk ) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments; a simple search on the Emmys website confirms her award (e.g. here ).  Straughn ( talk ) 20:25, 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: keep
Jean Dubuis : I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality.  gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions .  gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality" are appropriate references for this topic.  If you can add them in that would do as independent references.  I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  It would be nice to see more participation here.  It would make a closure more straight-forward.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep echoing @ Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources.  Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example [59] , [60] .   I just added this [61] from the Theosophical Society .   These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating WP:NAUTHOR #1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors .  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:17, 12 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: keep