hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Adrian Holliday: None of the references are secondary.  SL93 ( talk ) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  SL93 ( talk ) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well.  I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5 , but it is at least also suggestive.  The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR , and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE , as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage."  I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article".  I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith.  There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?  SL93 ( talk ) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF".  Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF.  Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF.  Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF.  So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF.  Which is it?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did.  Does that make your smug self happy?  SL93 ( talk ) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy?  That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors?  No.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles?  Since when does one professor article equal multiple?  I mean happy as in holding one mistake against an editor.  In that case, it is a yes.  SL93 ( talk ) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon: However, due to a recount the following month, their opponent was declared the winner, resulting in the subject losing their parliamentary seat.  which means the subject met WP:POLITICIAN but for brief time.  further, the subject fails to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I'm not sure what the policy is for situations like this, but it would seem like they'd still be considered notable.  Worth pointing out that there are other people who were elected and never seated but still got a Wikipedia page, such as Luke Letlow .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make sense.  I Withdraw this nomination.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 21:33, 23 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: speedy keep
Straight A's: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I mean there's this [55] , that's about all I can find.  This in Collider [56] , and in Variety [57] Nothing in Gnewspapers, I don't think the movie did much of anything after it was released.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I think it just barely makes it to notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You have also this and this for example.  The film was internationally distributed (with 2 different titles in Brazilian and European Portuguese, fwiw).  Production has attracted some attention; notable cast and director. — MY, OH, MY!  ( mushy yank ) — 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets our notability guideline.  Lightburst ( talk ) 22:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw per consensus.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:57, 16 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: speedy keep
Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals: Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India , where they were actually discovered .  Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages.  Charlie ( talk ) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and India .  Charlie ( talk ) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it.  Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK .  Crystalholm ( talk ) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably enough book reviews to keep it.  I also find [9] and [10] .  Indian Express review, which is a RS [11] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw and Keep as per the reasoning presented by Oaktree and others.  COI and UPE can be addressed in alternative forums.  Charlie ( talk ) 04:53, 21 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: speedy keep
Bibliography of Narendra Modi: Bibliography of every wiki article is mentioned right in the article itself, usually below the reference section.  Portwoman ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Portwoman ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Portwoman : We have 291 such pages on the encyclopedia: Special:PrefixIndex/Bibliography_of .  Some are topical bibliographies, while others are biographical, such as Bibliography of Richard Nixon .  This would make sense as a standalone page if it were spun off from the main article Narendra Modi for page size reasons, and a fair number of the biographical bibliographies are for world leaders.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agreed, let's close this discussion.  Portwoman ( talk ) 06:28, 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: speedy keep
National Messaging System: Suggest draftifying as it might be finished by the end of 2024.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Australia .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article has adequate references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's sigcov here already, so I think we don't need to worry about "what if it doesn't get completed" - I would expect more sigcov to appear whether it is ultimately completed or not.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and merge an unsourced article: Meets GNG.  Sources in the article and found in BEFORE show SIGCOV, its a new system so there cannot be long term LASTING but  sources cover its development and deployment so it does have as much LASTING as possible at this ooint, sources pass GEOSCOPE its clearly a national subject.  The content from Emergency Alert Australia (currently unsourced) should be summarized and merged into a history section in this article.  The sourcing in this article ( National Messaging System ) has enough information to source a summary of the information in Emergency Alert Australia so moving the unsourced material will source it.  Leave a redirect and both will be improved.  If this is kept, please ping me and I will post this merge proposal separately (unless someone wants to second boldly doing this).  // Timothy :: talk 09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : I second your bold merge and withdraw my nom.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:09, 2 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: speedy keep
Jennings, Saint Mary: it's all fading away talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Antigua and Barbuda .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh?  Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.  Grutness ... wha?  03:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW -if you need to know whether it's a real place, then this might help .  Grutness ... wha?  03:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : a search for sources indicates that the article passes WP:GEOLAND (populated, legally recognized place) and the sources cited by Grutness also show that this town is real/notable.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND its a settlement with census data.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per WP:GEOLAND -- Wesoree ( T · C ) 14:21, 18 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: speedy keep
Volker Mosblech: Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources.  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Conservatism ,  and Germany .  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures.  There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this proposal is meaningless.  per WP:NPOL.  _-_Alsor ( talk ) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : This nomination was meaningless.  The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death.  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Only the nominator can "withdraw" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I am the original nominator.  I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME , while the AfD was active.  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 18:53, 28 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: speedy keep
Dave Campfield: Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years.  I am not convinced many oft he films he ahs been involved in are notable either.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Radio , Florida , New York ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:DIRECTOR .  ("People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)."  I will improve the page Added a few of the numerous reliable existing sources on various of his very clearly notable films, that have been the subject of multiple reviews . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:DIRECTOR per Mushy Yank's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above.  Thanks for giving your opinions, Boleyn ( talk ) 11:54, 22 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: speedy keep
Harry Singleton: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per consensus Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - There is no association football/soccer criteria so I'm rather confused why you would cite that.  This is a person from the 1900s whose career ended in 1907, so are you aware that there may not be abundance of sources online for a person whose career ended 116 years ago? -- Echetus X e 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ATHLETE is related to football as well, am I missing something?  I mean there is a section "Professional sports people" with various sports and football is not included, but that only means that we can't use some specific criteria for football to prove notability like in other sports.  Thus, we should orient on WP:SPORTBASIC , which is not met in this case.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep There are sources online, [21] , [22] , [23] seriously, didn't you do a WP:BEFORE at all??  Govvy ( talk ) 21:56, 19 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: speedy keep
Benjamin Ree: Fails WP:SIGCOV .  No coverage.  scope_creep Talk 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets WP:DIRECTOR obviously.  Keep .  His films received coverage in Variety , in The NYT, etc, etc.  "Non-notable", how?? ?- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I looked at this I was unsure.  I found two in variety references: [42] This one is an obvious interview.  [43] This one is an annoucement with a description of the production details.  Its the usual film release notice.  It doesn't inspire confidence but he could be massive and I've just missed it and his film possibly.  Post three reference and I'll withdraw.  Hope that helps.  scope_creep Talk 13:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His film S .  At least 3 are VERY notable films.  Three references about them?  That's a bizarre requirement.  But OK.  Allow me to post 4.  ONE ; TWO ; THREE FOUR .  PLENTY of coverage exists.  The Reception sections of the articleS about his first 2 3 features should, in my view, have been considered.  Even the article about him shows enough to demonstrate notability.  But all is well...- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : there's a non-trivial amount of coverage about his films, including Variety [44] , I think he's notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found articles in The Ottawa Citizen and The Port Charlotte Sun about The Painter and the Thief , and the Boston Globe about Magnus .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So it looks like Benjamin Ree (love that name) is notable.  Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep Talk 17:29, 28 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: speedy keep
Joan A. Lambert: I'm not super familiar with notability standards for politicians but I don't think simply being elected is enough.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , California ,  and Nevada .  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete State assembly position with no other references to notability in career.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From WP:NPOL : The following are presumed to be notable: ...or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A presumtion needs to be followed up with sources that back up the assumption tho, I've looked a fair bit but I couldn't find any sources that are about Lambert.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is presumed for state legislators because the prominence and public nature of the position inevitably results in substantial coverage.  That is borne out by a quick search: Newspapers.com has over 500 results with reasonable filters (Nevada, 1980 to present), most of which seem to be for the subject of this article, and at least several of which constitute substantial coverage.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected then, I was not able to see those source when searching.  I will withdraw my nomination.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is POSSIBLY a BLP without good citations!  Someone needs to adopt and clean this if possible.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:44, 17 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: speedy keep
Sargent (film): Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment ,  and Pakistan .  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rather Keep : the review on the page, from Daily Jang , mentions a big box office success in Pakistan, among other things.  — MY, OH MY!  ( mushy yank ) — 14:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - You seem to have very poor knowledge of Pakistani sources.  See WP:PKRS for reliable and unreliable sources.  Insight 3 ( talk ) 15:23, 16 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: speedy keep
Tales of Tatonka: Tagged for notability since 2013 Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and France .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems notable.  Added sources. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 12:16, 6 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!  02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Animation Magazine source is solid.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per new sources.  Donald D23 talk to me 13:30, 14 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: speedy keep
Piwi+: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm at a bit of a loss at what's going on here.  Nominator Piwipie ( talk · contribs ) has not given any explanation for why this should be deleted… but their nomination

Discussion outcome: speedy keep