hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Fred Hammer : Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per my research and Habst's expansion.  To start, we have no archives of Luxembourg newspapers which would have covered him.  Despite this, we have arguable significant coverage from Olympedia (154 words), and then he received an obituary in Luxemburger Wort - it seems to be partially paywalled so I can't read the whole thing, but what I can see is that (translation) " In Luxembourg, Fred Hammer is a household name " - that quote is from 2020 .  He competed in the 1950s .  We also have mention on the Luxembourg Wikipedia that there is a section dedicated to him in the book Lëtzebuerger Olympia Lexikon , which would also be sigcov, and we have mention that he received the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg , which seems to be significant.  In all, there is enough to demonstrate notability for Fred Hammer.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Keep , I added several new sources to the article.  Most notably, his life is detailed in the book ISBN I added per the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, and I added his obituary where he is described as a (translated) "household name in Luxembourg" by the Luxemburger Wort .  He also meets WP:NATH as an international medalist, meaning we can presume coverage exists beyond this (surely if he is a "household name" then many other contemporary sources must exist -- though I do believe this is a keep even on the basis of these sources). -- Habst ( talk ) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfactory article and sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per all above.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made since nom.  Per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:27, 30 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
Tropical Storm Sonca (2017) : It can easily be merged with the season article.  Incognito Fedora ( talk ) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Asia .  Incognito Fedora ( talk ) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose/keep - Did you even see the impact that the storm caused?  Does that not warrant an article??  The only reason you would be nominating it is because of its meteorological history and top section, and even so, you can fix it yourself.  luis 💬 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this is a deletion discussion.  Articles of individual tropical cyclones should not be deleted and should instead be redirected if not notable.  Merge discussions of those articles take place on either the parent talk page (being the season which the storm formed during) or the talk page of the article itself.  luis 💬 14:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : news coverage establishes notability.  Owen× ☎ 16:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article itself might be short but this clearly passes WP:GNG .  The storm received wide coverage and the fairly high death toll makes it notable.  🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 00:52, 22 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
Home County Music & Art Festival : History6042 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Music , Events , Organizations ,  and Canada .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and flag for expansion.  Article does admittedly need improvement, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources rather than on whether or not they're all already in the article yet — and with over 1,000 hits in ProQuest the sourcing clearly does exist to improve it with.  For an event that's been in operation since 1974, you can't presume that Google tells the whole story by itself, and absolutely have to go spelunking in the archives to check for older pregoogle stuff.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , totally agree with bearcat .  {{ Sources exist }}.  ihateneo ( talk ) 00:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NEXIST Lightburst ( talk ) 14:38, 24 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
Touché Restaurant & Bar : This source is more about the building it was in.  And this source is more about the redevelopment of the building the restaurant was in.  There is also a "Touché Restaurant" in Miami https://chilledmagazine.com/must-mix-ginger-root-cocktails-from-touche-restaurant-miami/ but not sure if it still open.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Oregon .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the WP:RS it was notable per WP:NTEMP .  We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable and in depth.  We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for such articles.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator).  This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating articles by me indiscriminately, or at least without completing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD.  I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are.  The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage in reliable sources.  I could potentially see the page being moved, if editors feel the historic building is more notable than the most recent restaurant which operated there, but there's definitely a notable topic here.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes the WP:GNG .  No objection to reworking this to the building.  Can be done after discussing on talk page.  Which begs the question: why was this nominated for deletion at all.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article covers this restaurant, previous restaurants and the historic building.  Plenty of reliable, independent references.  Passes GNG.  Yes, could be it's the building that's more notable.  The article does mention a number of previous occupiers (Develan's and Remo's) not just Touché.  I'd suggest, if I may be so bold, retitling under something like Fire Station (Touché Restaurant).  Also, if Wikipedia allows, there could be redirects for the previous restaurants, unless separate articles can be written for those.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:23, 2 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
Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's tournament : Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia .  Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you planning to nominate all previous years too?  It should either be all or none in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you think Asian Games is not especially notable?  It`s a multi-sport games with more than 10,000 competitors.  Yikesaiting ( talk ) 01:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do participants think about a merge (alongside Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Women's tournament ) into Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games ?  Edward-Woodrow • talk 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WildCherry06 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is easily notable as the Asian Games is one of the major multi-sport events that is held.  HawkAussie ( talk ) 10:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a major competition.  Could use some refs but other than that, no need to delete.  Kante4 ( talk ) 13:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, the only thing is this might have been a little WP:TOOSOON .  The event is ongoing now though, and should be populated shortly.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All users above did not comment about GNG, so here are examples of coverage: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .  I wouldn't say they are strong signs of notability, but they should be enough for BASIC .  Merging can also be possible although it might look a bit messy.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:05, 23 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
Kirakira (video game) : Metacritic has no reviews .  Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The game did get significant coverage in Siliconera , suggesting there is potentially more out there despite the vague name not doing it many favors.  It also got a review from UK Anime Network , but the jury is out on whether they are reliable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Reviews in Siliconera and RPG Fan , both reliable per WP:VG/S .  2 reviews in UK Anime Network: [13] , [14] .  Per WP:A&M/RS reviews by Andy Hanley are reliable.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Mika1h, the game has enough sources to pass WP:GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . Sources located above address my concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:41, 16 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
Shihab Thangal Charity Trust : The article fails WP:NONPROFIT .  The primary sources include press releases and local coverage about some charity works did by them.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , India ,  and Kerala .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have added translations of the titles of the Malayalam-language newspaper articles used as references.  The Hindu is a national newspaper, and there is also international coverage from the Saudi Gazette.  I think that the coverage adds up to notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:57, 9 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!  06:36, 16 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!  04:30, 23 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, Daniel ( talk ) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If 2 reliable sources aren’t enough to establish notability then I don’t know what is.  So keep per WP:GNG Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Yep, looks to meet WP:GNG .  Tollens ( talk ) 06:47, 3 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
JPL (cyclecar) : I'm not seeing significant coverage per the GNG.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Michigan .  JMWt ( talk ) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as per above and cool history page to have Mr Vili talk 22:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a tribute to the legacy, the page has existed from 2007 to the present.  However, frankly speaking, it does not meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG).  -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - covered in at least two reliable sources (Kimes, Georgano), both independent of the subject.  I see no justification for deleting this entry.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added two more sources, expanded a touch to include the revised, water-cooled Model F. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:30, 22 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!  22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with multiple reliable independent sources, it passes GNG, and the article has enough content to explain the topic.  -- Sable232 ( talk ) 15:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sourcing in history looking good after additions.  notability met.  Password (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 29 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
Archbishop Makarios III Lyceum : Equal width ( C ) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools .  Equal width ( C ) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While schools are not automatically notable, in my own WP:BEFORE , I have found and added a number of reliable/independent sources which support the text and would appear to support a claim to notability (of what appears to be a relatively large school).  Otherwise there is no indication whatsoever that the nominator undertook any kind of BEFORE themselves and have stated that they are "not good at finding sources" . ) Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Guliolopez.  Meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Sourcing is sufficient to support an article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:44, 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
Perfect Harmony (TV series) : Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television ,  and United States of America .  Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 2024 (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/2024 April 24 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:COMMONOUTCOMES ; primetime series on American broadcast networks are generally kept, and even removing the week-to-week ratings sources it more than passes GNG.  Nominator attempted to nominate Tom Swift and that was also kept.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , implausible that a network television series that ran for a full season across two calendar years would not have sufficient coverage to be found.  BD2412 T 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found plenty of in depth coverage - eg https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/perfect-harmony-nbc-review-bradley-whitford-1203347611/ BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should soft delete this page 2800:810:498:E74:8500:1E10:DDC3:636E ( talk ) 22:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please state a proper rationale for deletion; 'soft deletion' would be a nomination with no votes for two weeks, which is not a possible result here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Quick WP:BEFORE finds multiple reliable sources discussing the show Shazback ( talk ) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : these nominations are clearly nonsense.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:04, 30 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
Sandy Poulsen : Shellwood ( talk ) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article needs work, but subject is notable.  Olympian 1 , successful business and  land owner 2 , 3 ,  [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , ski results 8 , 9 in NYT , author of a book 10 , 11 . Jaireeodell ( talk ) 22:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of these citations are for a person born in 1918; likely a relative, but not the person competing in the 1972 Olympics.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for catching that.  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 12:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG with sources like this , this , this , this , this , and this .  The person with the earlier birthdate appears to be her mother, who apparently also had the same name.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 10:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG and Ejgreen77's sources.  pburka ( talk ) 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It fits with WP:GNG however it does need a lot more things to be added it seems more like a page in progress rather than something that needs to be deleted.  Swaggalicious ( talk ) 07:45, 01 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
Awrangzib Faruqi : Most references provide only a vague and fleeting acknowledgment of his existence, with one source even labeling him as "certain Aurangzeb Faruqi."  Furthermore, his absence of electoral victories disqualifies him based on the stipulations outlined in WP:POLITICIAN .  This cumulative evidence underscores the compelling rationale for advocating the removal of this Wikipedia article.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A highly controversial but very much notable person.  The article needs improvement not deletion.  Muneebll ( talk ) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPOL sets *inclusive* criteria, not meeting those criteria is not grounds for deletion, it only indicates that presumed notability is not available.   NB WP:NEXIST , simple search shows sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG : eg BBC Urdu (2015) , Nawaiwaqt (2021) , Daily Pakistan (2023) .  AfD is not clean up.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can see multiple reliable sources of Urdu version to satisfy GNG.  M.Ashraf333 ( talk ) 11:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This article already has many references from reliable sources - newspapers and book sources.  In my view, there is no doubt about his notability.  Meets WP:GNG ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:47, 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